i 


m 


V^,v'W 


ifct 

■ii 


«*« 


W$Mi 


K 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


i 


GIFT  OF 

Williani  Popper 


^^' 


^^- 


^¥^i^- 


PROiNAOS  TO  HOLY  WRIT 

ESTABLISHING,    ON    DOCUMENTARY     EVIDENCP],    THE 

AUTHORSHIP,  DATE,  FORM,   AND   CONTENTS 

OF   EACH   OF   ITS  BOOKS 

AND   THE 

AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 


BY 

ISAAC    M.   WISE 

President  of  the  Hebrew  Union  College,  Cincinnati 


CINCINNATI 
ROBERT    CLARKE    &    CO 

1891 


Copyright,  1S91, 
By  ISAAC   M    WISE. 


f 


PREFACE. 

MOST  critics  read  little  more  than  the  index  or  table  of 
contents  of  the  books  Avhich  they  criticise ;  few  of 
them  study  an  author  before  they  attempt  to  laud  or  blame 
him.  The  author  of  this  Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ  criticises 
the  literature  of  the  ancient  Hebrews,  and  has  read  all  those 
books  and  every  word  thereof  in  the  original  for  a  term  of 
sixty-six  years,  i.  e.,  from  boyhood  up  to  his  seventy-second 
birthday,  and  has  attempted  to  acquaint  himself  with  all 
ancient  versions  and  commentaries,  and  a  large  portion  of 
the  modern  translations  and  commentaries  of  the  Bible. 
Besides,  he  expounded  Holy  Writ  these  forty-eight  years  in 
the  synagogues  and  school-rooms,  and  before  academical 
classes  in  the  college  these  sixteen  years. 

Therefore  he  ought  to  have  written  a  much  better  book 
than  this  Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  He  should  have  dived 
into  the  depth  of  this  spiritual  ocean,  and  brought  up  for 
the  reader  the  priceless  pearls  of  divine  wisdom  and  salva- 
tion, the  gems  and  beauties  of  inspired  eloquence,  the  grand- 
eur and  sublimity  of  divine  truth.  Domineering  realism, 
however,  in  Biblical  criticism  as  in  all  other  realms  of 
science,  forbade  him  to  make  such  an  attempt  before  the 
authority  and  authenticity  of  the  holy  writings  are  estab- 
lished. God  only  did  create  light  out  of  darkness ;  man 
can  not  produce  truth  out  of  fiction,  unless  in  his  self-delu- 
sion problematic  truth  satisfies  him.  All  so-called  gems  of 
truth  buried  under  the  quicksand  of  fiction  and  deception 
are  problematic  at  best,  if  not  supported  by  authoritative 


9051G5 


4  Preface. 

corroborants.  None  can  speak  conscientiously  of  Bible 
truth  before  he  knows  that  the  Bible  is  true,  and  especially 
in  its  historical  data.  The  science  commonly  called  Mod- 
ern Biblical  Criticism,  actually  Negative  Criticism,  which 
maintains,  on  the  strength  of  unscientific  methods,  that  the 
Pentateuch  is  not  composed  of  original  Mosaic  material,  no 
Psalms  are  Davidian,  no  Proverbs  Solomonic,  the  historical 
books  are  unhistorical,  the  prophecies  were  written  post  fes- 
tum,  there  was  no  revelation,  inspiration  or  prophecy,  must 
also  maintain  that  the  Bible  is  a  compendium  of  pious  or 
even  impious  frauds,  willful  deceptions,  unscrupulous  mis- 
representations ;  whence  comes  the  Bible  truth  of  which 
they  speak?  It  was  necessary,  therefore,  the  author  thinks, 
first  of  all  things,  to  meet  Negative  Criticism  with  the  docu- 
mentary evidence — and  this  is  undoubtedly  the  legitimate 
method  of  criticism — which  establishes  the  truth  of  the 
Bible,  before  he  could  speak  intelligently  of  Bible  truth.  So 
he  could  ofier  to  the  reader  a  mere  Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ, 
which  will  assist  him  in  convincing  himself  of  the  truth  of 
the  Bible,  and  point  him  to  the  door  leading  into  the 
interior  of  the  sanctuary,  which  is  the  system  of  Bible 
truth.  To  this  end  we  must  know  first  and  foremost  when, 
where,  by  whom  and  to  what  end  these  various  books  were 
written,  in  order  to  judge  correctly  the  quantity  and  quality 
of  truth  contained  in  them.  It  is  this  which  this  Pronaos 
chiefly  offers. 

The  author  has  paid  particular  attention  to  the  most 
ancient  records  of  Israel's  history,  contained  in  Pentateuch, 
Joshua,  Judges,  Kings  and  Ruth,  and  to  the  semi-propheti- 
cal books,  called  Hagiography,  for  the  following  reasons  : 

1.  If  the  historical  veracity  of  the  post-Pentateuchal 
records  is  established,  as  he  verily  believes  he  has  done,  all 


Preface.  5 

arguments  against  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Pentateuch  are 
untenable,  inasmuch  as  in  all  matters  of  fact  the  direct  testi- 
mony of  veracious  witnesses  or  the  documentary  testimony 
of  authentic  records,  are  conclusively  demonstrative  oppo- 
site all  circumstantial  evidence  of  the  a  priori  or  a  posterori 
category,  which  after  all  can  prove  probability  or  possibility 
only,  and  not  certitude,  which  the  direct  or  documentary 
testimony  establishes.  If  the  advocates  of  Negative  Criticism 
urge  that  the  author's  arguments  are  insufficient  to  estab- 
lish certitude,  they  must  admit  their  sufficiency  to  contro- 
vert their  own.  This  places  the  problem  upon  the  statu 
quo  of  the  uninterrupted  tradition,  and  this  testifies  to  the 
Mosaic  origin  of  the  Pentateuch. 

2.  The  same  argument  holds  good  with  the  Davidian 
Psalms  and  the  Solomonic  Proverbs.  They  not  only  testify 
directly  to  the  existence  and  acknowledged  authority  of  the 
Mosaic  documents  in  the  time  of  those  kings  as  a  heritage 
then  of  the  congregation  of  Israel,  but  also  to  the  veritable 
contents  of  those  ancient  documents  being  identical  with 
the  Pentateuch  now  before  us.  We  find  then  in  Psalms  the 
Theology  of  Moses,  in  Proverbs  the  Ethics  of  Moses,  in 
Job  and  Ecclesiastes  the  Apologetics  of  both,  in  Chronicles, 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah  the  necessary  addenda  to  the  ancient 
canons ;  so  that  the  entire  Book  is  a  logical  organism,  with 
every  part  in  its  right  place. 

3.  The  authenticity  of  the  Mosaic  records  is  the  founda- 
tion of  all  Bible  truth.  The  whole  system  of  righteousness, 
justice  and  equity  for  public  government  and  the  conduct 
of  the  individual,  virtue  and  holiness  as  a  form  of  divine 
worship,  monotheism  itself  with  all  the  doctrine  derived 
from  this  principle,  the  entire  canon  of  divinity  and 
humanity  depends  for  evidence  on  the  authenticity   and 


6  Preface. 

veracity  of  the  Pentateuchal  records ;  every  other  e\'idence 
has  been  at  different  times  refuted  and  is  subject  to  skepti- 
cism now,  perhaps,  more  than  ever.  If  these  records  are 
fraudulent,  there  exists  no  proof  that  whatever  the  chroni- 
clers, prophets  and  psalmists  said  or  sang  is  not  of  the 
same  kind  of  fraud  and  imposition,  and  there  is  no  Bible 
truth.  This  explains  the  author's  attempt  to  save  the 
records  which  establish  Bible  truth.  The  kind  reader  -vnll 
decide  how  successful  or  unsuccessful  this  attempt  was,  and 
at  least  give  credit  to  the  author  for  honesty  of  purpose. 

The  Author. 
Cincinnati,  the  3(1  day  of  the  month  of  Nissan,  1891. 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER   I.— MAIN  DIVISIONS  AND  CLAIMS  OF  SACRED 

SCRIPTURES. 

PABAGBAPH.  PAGE. 

I.  The  Religion  of  the  Hebrews — Name,      -        -        -  12 

II.  The  Substance  of  the  Theology  contained,  -        -  12 

III.  The  Collection  of  Books  called  Bible,       -        -        -  13 

IV.  No  book  added,  none  changed  its  name,       -        -  13 
V.  The  forty-three  books  connected  in    twenty-four 

volumes,        ..-..---14 
VI.  The  twenty-four   books  in  the   three  divisions   of 

Thorah,  Prophets  and  Hagiography,      -        -  15 

VII.  The  Doctrine  involved  in  this  division,     -        -        -  17 

VIII.  Maimonides  expounds  this  doctrine,      -        -        .  18 
IX.  The  division  of  Thorah  in  five  books,  Divisions  and 

Contents  of  each,        ------  19 

X.  Antiquity  of  these  divisions,  -        .        .        .  23 

CHAPTER  II.— THE  FIRST  CANON. 

I.  Canon,  a  Greek  translation  of  Thorah,    -        .        -      25 

II.  Cause  of  superiority  and  inferiority  of  the  different 

Canons,      --------  25 

III.  The  very  first  Canon.     (Note  on  the  Book  of  the 

Covenant.)  26 

IV.  The  Mosaic  Scrolls  noticed  in  the  Pentateuch  and 

the  matter  added,    ------  27 

V.  Deuteronomy  originally  written  by  Moses,       -        -  30 

VI.  Moses  the  author  of  Genesis,          -        -        -        -  -^i 

VII.  The  Thorah  delivered  to  the  priests  and  the  Thorah  ■ 

delivered  to  the  Levites  and  Elders.    (Note  on 
Isaiah  i,  13.) 33 

VIII.  What  Documentary  Evidence  establishes,  -  3-1 

CHAPTER  III.-THE  FORMER  PROPHETS. 

I.  Position  of  Prophets  in  the  Synagogue,    -        -        -      36 
II.  The  Authors  and  Editors  of  the  Biblical  books  accord- 
ing to  ancient  tradition  recorded  in  the  Talmud,      36 

III.  Official  and  cotemporary  Chronography,  -        -      37 

IV.  The  Historical  Books  are  synopses  or  combinations 

from  official  and  cotemporary  records,  -  39 

V.  Joshua. 

Its  orginal  material,       - 40 

VI.        Divisions  and  Contents  of  the  Book,         -        -  41 

VII.  Judges. 

Divisions    and    Contents    of    the  Book   and  its 
appendices, 42 


8  Table  of  Contents. 

PAEAGKAPH.  PAGE. 

VIII.       Characteristics  of  the  Book,       .        .        -        .  43 

IX.  Characteristics  of  the  Appendices,  being  of  later 

origin,  ----.-..       44 

X.  Samuel  the  author  of  Judges  (note  on  "  Dan  "),    -  46 
XI.  Joshua,  being  older  than  Judges,  was  written  in  the 

Phineas  age   dates  for  both  books,    -        -        -  47 
XII.  Samuel. 

Characteristics,  ------  4g 

XIII.  Divisions  and  Contents,  -----  49 

XIV.  Authors,  Samuel,  Gad  and  Nathan  and  date  fixed,  51 
XV.        Proofs  for  the  Samuel  portion,   -        -        -        -  52 

XVI.       The  objections- reviewed, 53 

XVII.  Kings. 

Divisions  and  Contents,       -----  55 

XVIII.        Four  Authors  in  Kings, 55 

XIX.        The  last  synoptic  could   not   have   written   the 
former  portions,  nor  could  the  first  have  writ- 
ten the  last  portions ;  dates  fixed,         -        -  56 
XX.  Historical  value  and  authenticity  of  the  four  books,      57 

CHAPTER  IV.— THE  LATER  PROPHETS. 

I.  The  second  part  of  the  Second  Canon,  the  names  of 

the  authors, --  59 

II.  Uninterrupted  succession  of  Prophets  to  Malachi, 

425B.  C,      -        -        - 59 

III.  Joel. 

Divisions,  Contents,  Time  and  Characteristics  of 
the  book,  -------  55 

IV,  Objections  considered,  -----      66 
V.  The   four    cotemporary    prophets,    dates   of    their 

prophecies,        -■-.---  57 

V.  Amos. 

Divisions,  Contents  and  Characteristics,       -        -      69 

VI,    HOSEA. 

Divisions,  Contents  and  Characteristics,  -  69 

VII.  Isaiah. 

Divisions,  Contents  Characteristics  and  Unity,   -      70 
VIII.       Isaiah  xl.  to  Ixvi.  Contents,  Date  and  Character- 
istics,        - --  72 

MiCAH  in  paragraphs  v.  and  vi. 
IX.  Nahum. 

Divisions,  Name  and  Place,  Date  and  Contents,         74 
X.  Habakkuk. 

Divisions,  Contents  and  Date,       -        -        -        -      75 
XI.  Zephaniah. 

Divisions,  Contents  and  Date,    -        -        -        -  76 

XII.  Obadiah. 

Divisions,  Contents  and  Date,        -        -        -        -      77 

XIII.  Jeremiah. 

Name,  Place,  Date,  Political  Status,  his  relation 
to  the  Reforms  of  King  Joshiah,    -        -        -  78 

XIV.  The  Book  of  Jeremiah,  Divisions,  Contents  and 

Characteristics,  .-__--      80 

XV.  Imitation  in  Jeremiah  xlix.,        -,       .        -       -  82 


Table-  of  Contents.  9 

PARAGRAPH.  PAGE. 

XVI.    JOKAH. 

Divisions,  Contents,  Characteristics  and  Dat-e,  83 

XXII.    EZEKIEL. 

Characteristics  and  Dates,  .        -        -        -  84 

XVIII.       Divisions  of  the  booli,  Literature  and  Peculiari- 
ties of  the  author,        ------       86 

XIX.        Three  distinct  parts  of  the  book,  their  character- 
istics, the  prophet's  place  in  history,      -        -  87 

XX.  The  Three  Post-Exilic  Prophets,  Division  of  the 

Twelve  Minor  Prophets  as  one  book,         -        -      89 

XXI.  Haggi. 

Divisions,  Contents,  Characteristics  and  Date,  90 

XXII.  Zechariah. 

Divisions,  Genealogy,  Contents,  Characteristics 
and  Date, 91 

XXIII.  The  Five  Chapters  of  Zechariah  ix.  to  xiii.,       -  92 

XXIV.  Malachi. 

Divisions,  Contents,  Characteristics  and  Date,    -      93 

CHAPTER  v.— HAGIOGRAPHY. 

I.  Characteristics  of  Hagiography,  and  especially  of 

Psalms,  Proverbs  and  Job,      -        -        -        -  95 

II.  Psalms. 

The  Five  Books  of  Psalms  and  their  contents,    -  95 

III.        The  Headings  in  Psalms, 96 

IV-        The  "Menazeach,"  or  Chief  Musician,         -        -  99 

V.  The  various  Compilers  and  the  dates  of  each,  99 

VI.  The  Book  of  Psalms,  Divisions,  Characteristics,  102 
VII.       The  Theological  Doctrine  of  Psalms,          -        -  103 

VIII.  Proverbs, 

Divisions,  Characteristics  and  Form,    -        -        -  104 
IX.       The  Three  Headings  of  Proverbs,  Author,  Com- 
pilers,        -.----..  104 

X.       The  Solomonic  Ethics,  Opinions  of  the  Rabbis,  108 
XI.       The    Solomonic   Ethics   as   Commentary   of   the 

Mosaic  Ethics,      -------  109 

XII         Object  of  Part  III  of  the  book,  -        -        -  111 

XIII         Objections  considered ;  Date  fixed,       -        -        -  112 
XIV.  Job. 

The  Book  of  Job  an  Epos,  Form  and  Contents,  113 

XV.       The  Position  of  the  Book  in  the  Canon,        -        -  115 

XVI.        Time  of  its  composition,      -----  118 

XVII.  The  Fourth  Book  of  Hagiography,    -        -        -        -  119 

XVIII.  Ruth. 

Divisions,  Contents,  Form,  Author  and  Time,  120 
XIX.  Song  of  Songs. 

Divisions,  Form  and  Characteristics,    -        -        -  121 

XX       Contents,      --------  122 

XXI.  As  a  Profane  Poem, -  123 

XXII.  An  Anagoge,  Author,  Compiler  and  Time,        -        125 

XXIII  ECCLESIASTES 

Divisions  and  Characteristics,        -        .        .        -     127 

XXIV  Cause  of  the  Apparent  Contradictions  in  the  Book,    129 
XXV.      Author,  Compiler  and  Date,  ...        -    130 


10  Table  of  Contents. 

PABAGBAPH.  PAQK 

xivi.  Lamentations. 

Divisions,  Contents  and  Form,  -        -        -        182 

XXVII.        Historical  Foundation,  Author  and  Date,     -        -     133 
xxviii.  Esther. 

Divisions,     Contents,    Purim,    Historical    Data, 

Author  and  Date, 135 

XXIX.  Daniel. 

Divisions  and  Characteristics,       -        -        -        -     138 
XXX.        Daniel  vii  ,  Author  and  Date,  -        .        .        140 

XXXI.  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 

Divisions,         -        -        - 141 

XXXII.       Contents, -        -        142 

xxxiii.        Language,  Arguments  on  the  Author,  -        -    144 

XXXIV.       Author,  Compiler  and  Date,       .        -        .        -        145 
XXXV.  Chronicles 

Divisions,  Contents  and  Object,  -        -        -        147 

XXXVI.  Characteristics  of  Chronicles, Additions  to  Samuel 

and  Kings,    --------     148 

XXXVII.  The  Diction  of  the  Chronist,  Author  and  Date,         150 
XXXVIII.       The  Nine  Chapters  at  the  head  of  Chronicles, 

Author  and  Time,        ------     151 

XXXIX.  Four  Books  connected  in  two,  now  again  four,      -        153 

CHAPTER  VI.  — THE    AUTHENTICITY    OF    THE    PENTA- 
TEUCH. 

I.  The  Traditions  of  Israel, 157 

II.  The    Documentary    Evidence   direct.       (Notes    on 

Bamoth  and  Shiloh  and  Deification  of  the  Ark),  157 

III.  The  Indirect  Evidence.    (Note  on  Jeremiah  xxxiv.),  162 

IV.  Argument  e  silentio,           ------  159 

V.  Argument  from  the  Last  Books  of  the  Canon,          -  171 
VI.  The  Tliree    Middle    Books   of   the  Pentateuch   not 

edited  in  the  time  of  Kings  The  Book  of  the 
Law  found  in  the  Temple  in  the  time  of  King 
Joshiah, -        -        173 

VII.  The  existence  and    authority  of  the  Thorah  traced 

up  to  Samuel. 176 

VIII.  The  three  Middle  Books  must  have  been  edited  by 

Samuel,  or  before  his  time,     -        -        -        -        177 

IX.  Documentary  Evidence  compels  us  to  admit  that 
Mosaic  records  were  edited  after  the  death  of 
Moses  (although  none  m  Genesis  or  Deuter- 
onomy). Causes  to  reject  the  hypothesis  of 
Fragments,  - 179 

X.  The  Jahvistic  and  Elohistic  hypotheses  of  different 

authors  refuted,        .-.--.        184 

XI.  Ezra  the  Scribe — what  is  known  about  him,        -        -     187 
XII.  AVhat  Ezra  actually  did, -        187 

XIII.  The  Invention  of  tlie  Square-Letter  Alphabet,     -        -     190 

XIV.  The  Massoretic  Divisions,  .        -        -        .        -        191 
XV.  The  Men  of  the  Great  Synod  and  the  Correctors  in  the 

Temple,         --------     192 


CHAPTER    I. 

MAIN   DIVISIONS    AND    CLAIMS    OF    SACRED    SCRIPTURES. 

THE  religion  of  the  He):)rews  is  commonly  called  Judaism, 
instead  of  Abrahamism  or  Mosaism  according  to  its 
founders,  Israelism  or  Hebrewism,  according  to  its  original 
votaries,  or  miT' riNT'  Yimth  Jehovah,  "the  Worship  of 
Jehovah,"  as  it  is  called  in  its  own  sources,*  and  which  is 
its  main  characteristic  ;  because  the  Gricco-Roman  writers 
had  no  knowledge  of  this  system  of  religion  prior  to  the 
time  of  the  Hebrews'  Second  Commonwealth,  and  then  the 
land  was  called  Judea  and  its  people  Judei,  and  consequently 
its  teachings  were  called  Judaism.  The  word  Judaism,  how- 
ever, being  popularly  understood  to  designate  the  religion  of 
Israel,  it  was  deemed  advisable  to  use  it  also  in  this  treatise. 
2.  The  substance  of  the  theology  of  Judaism  is  contained 
in  the  Thorah,  called  in  the  Bible,  ,11.1^  rTlin  "  the  Thorah 
of  Jehovah,"  and  in  the  Talmud.  DrODC^  n"lin  "the  writ- 
ten Thorah,"  or  also  Hlin  ^C^DH  HC'On  '•  Pentateuch,"  in 
Aramaic,  J<nm{<  "the  divine  Canon."  It  contains  not 
only  the  revelations  of  God's  nature  and  will,  his  essential- 
ity, and  attributes  conceivable  to  man,  but  also  the  body  of 
ethical  doctrine,  following  with  logical  necessity  from  the 
cognition  of  the  one,  onh^  and  true  God,  to  guide  man  and 
mankind  to  happiness.  In  this  second  sense  of  "  the  Tho- 
rah of  Jehovah,"  the  Greeks  called  it  Nomos,  "  the  Law ; " 
for  whatever  follows  with  logical  necessity  from  the  cogni- 
tion of  God  is  canon  and  law  to  man.  The  Thorah  is 
expounded,  expanded,  amended,  and  the  history  of  its 
development  and  progress  recorded  in  the  other  books  of 

*  Isaiah  xxxiii.  6;  Proverbs  i.  7,  and  many  other  places,  especially 
in  Psalms  and  Proverbs,  always  improperly  rendered  "  Fear  of  the 
Lord.'- 


12  Main  Divisions  of  Sacred  Scriptures. 

the  collection  called  the  Bible,  by  inspired  teachers,  and  by 
uninspired  savants,  or  sages  in  the  post-biblical  literature  of 
Israel ;  for  all  of  Avhom,  however,  the  Thorah  was  and  must 
unexceptionally  be  taken  as  source  and  standard.  It  is 
presumed  that  the  revelations  of  God's  nature  and  will  in 
the  Thorah  are  the  ultimate  for  man's  comprehensibility 
and  his  attainment  of  happiness  in  time  and  eternity. 
Therefore,  the  Thorah  is  eternal.  This  always  was  universal 
doctrine  among  orthodox  Israelites. 

3.  The  collection  of  sacred  books  called  by  Grseco-Latin 
writers  Bihlia*  "  the  Book,^^  "  the  Bible,"  as  it  is  now  before 
us,  consists  of  the  following  forty-three  books  : 

Five  books  of  Moses,  one  of  Joshua,  one  of  Judges,  two 
of  Samuel,  two  of  Kings,  one  each  of  Isaiah,  Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel,  and  twelve  of  the  Minor  Prophets,  connected  under 
the  Aramaic  name  of  'HDJ/^^in ;  five  of  Psalms,  one  each  of 
Proverbs,  Job,  Song  of  Songs,  Ecclesiastes,  Lamentations, 
Ruth,  Esther,  Daniel,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  and  two  Books 
of  Chronicles.  Each  of  these  books  is  mentioned  in  a, 
source  of  the  Talmud  called  Beritha.  (Baba  Bathra,  146.) 
Quotations  from  each  of  these  books  occur  in  the  Talmud 
and  its  sources. f  The  main  commentaries  accepted  by  the 
Israelites  are  contained  in  the  Talmud,  of  which  there  exist 
two  collections ;  one  compiled  in  Palestine  at  the  end  of  the 
fourth  Christian  century,  is  called  the  Talmud  of  Jerusalem 
(Talmud  Yerushalmi) ,  and  the  other,  compiled  in  Persia 
at  the  end  of  the  fifth  Christian  century,  is  called  the  Tal- 
mud of  Babylon  ( Talmud  Babli).  The  extant  written 
sources  of  both  collections,  besides  the  Bible,  are  the  six 

*  Originally  the  plural  "  books,"  used  as  a  singular  in  Latin  to 
denote  the  Book  emphatically. 

t  See  "  Toldoth  Aaron,"  by  Aaron  ben  Moses,  of  Pisaro,  and 
"Toldoth  Jacob,"  by  Jacob  Sasportes,  Amsterdam,  1652,  added 
also  to  some  editions  of  the  Rabbinical  Bible.  These  books  fur- 
nish a  complete  index  of  Bible  passages  quoted  in  the  Talmud,  also 
in  Zohnr,  Akedah  and  Ikkarim.  These  quotations  are  of  the  same 
importance  for  text  criticism  as  would  be  a  manuscript  of  the  whole 
Bible  from  the  second  and  third  centuries. 


Proxaos  to  Holy  Writ.  13 

volumes  of  statute  law  called  Mishnah,  on  which  the  Tal- 
mud chiefly  comments,  Tosephta,  Mechilta,  Safra,  Sifri^ 
Pirkei  Rabbi  Eli'  zer,  Seder  Olam  and  Meguillath  Taanith,  all 
of  which  except  Mishnah  are  called  Bcritha  or  "  outside " 
of  Mishna,  and  were  written  in  the  first  half  of  the  second 
Christian  century,  with  additions  from  the  beginning  of  the 
third.  Other  and  less  authoritative  commentaries  are  the 
Targumim,  Aramaic  and  Syriac  versions  and  paraphrases  of 
Scriptures ;  the  post-Talmudical  homilies  contained  in  the 
various  collections  called  Midrash  and  Pesikta;  the  Moorish- 
Spanish  and  French  Rabbinical  commentators  and  philoso- 
phers between  the  tenth  and  sixteenth  centuries ;  and  above 
all  the  3Iassora,  which  rendered  the  text  legible  and  intel- 
ligible to  the  common  man  by  providing  it  with  vocal  and 
accentual  signs  according  to  authoritative  traditions. 

4.  As  far  back  into  antiquity  as  the  post-biblical  litera- 
ture of  the  Hebrews  reaches,  no  book  of  the  Bible,  Nehe- 
miah  excepted,  was  added,  omitted,  or  changed  from  its 
original  name.  Also,  the  twelve  Minor  Prophets  are  men- 
tioned as  one  book  in  the  Beritha,  the  Septuagint  and  in  the 
book  of  Joshua  ben  Sirah  (xlix.  35,  in  Greek  10) ;  except 
the  Book  of  Nehemiah,  which  was  still  a  part  of  the  Book 
of  Ezra  when  the  Talmud  was  written  (Sanhedrin  936). 
Samuel  and  Kings  may  have  been  considered  one  book  by 
the  Greek  translators,  but  there  is  no  trace  of  it  in  these 
sources.  The  three  books,  Samuel,  Kings  and  Chronicles, 
were  divided  each  into  two  by  Hieronymus  (Prol  in  Reg.). 
In  the  first  Bibles  printed  in  Socinio  (1488)  and  in  Brescia 
(1494)  the  ancient  divisions  are  retained.  In  the  Basel 
edition  of  1534,  and  also  in  the  Bomberg  Rabbinical  Bibles, 
the  subdivisions  of  Hieronymus  were  adopted,  to  be  thence 
copied  into  subsequent  prints.  In  order  to  retain  the  tra- 
ditional twenty-four  books  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  the 
division  of  Ezra  into  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  was  accepted,  and 
the  five  books,  viz. :  Ruth,  Song  of  Songs,  Lamentations, 
Ecclesiastes  and  Esther  —  read  in  the  synagogue  on  five 
different  days  of  the  year  —  were  reckoned  one  book.  A 
Book  of  Daniel,  wherein  it  was  presumed  Daniel  had  prophe- 
sied that  one  of  the  Greeks  should  destroy  the  empire  of  the 


14  Main  Divisions  of  Sacred  Scriptures. 

Persians,  is  mentioned  in  Josephus  (Antiq.  x.  viii.  5)  as 
having  been  shown  in  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem  to  Alexan- 
der the  Great. 

Psalms  is  divided  into  five  books,  viz. : 

1.  Chapters  i.  to  xli. 

2.  Chapters  xlii.  to  Ixxii. 

3.  Chapters  Ixxiii.  to  Ixxxix. 

4.  Chapters  xc.  to  cvi. 

5.  Chapters  cvii.  to  the  end  of  the  book. 

Each  of  the  four  books  closes  with  a  doxology,  "  Amen 
and  Amen,"  or  "  Amen  Hallelujah,"  similar  to  Nehemiah 
viii.  6,  and  I.  Chronicles  xvi.  35,  36,  to  which  is  added  at 
the  close  of  the  second  book  ^\y^  p  -["n  n'^iH  I'^D,  "  Fin- 
ished are  the  prayers  of  David,  son  of  Jesse." 

Not  all  Psalms  are  Davidian,  as  their  headings  show. 
The  ancient  rabbis  mention  nine  older  poets,  like  Moses  in 
Psalm  xc.  and  contemporaries  of  David. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  Psalms  were  written  much 
later,  or  even  up  to  the  time  of  Simeon  the  Asmonean,  and 
that  the  five-book  division  refers  to  five  collections  made  at 
different  times,  all  of  which  were  accepted  in  the  Canon 
without  re-arrangement.  Still,  as  part  of  the  Canon, 
Psalms  is  counted  as  one  book  only,  even  in  the  most 
ancient  notices ;  it  is  evident,  therefore,  that  those  collec- 
tions were  made  prior  to  the  establishment  of  the  third 
Canon.  The  division  of  chapters  are  different.  Psalms  had 
147  chapters  with  them.  Psalms  i.  and  ii.  were  naturally 
counted  as  one,  on  account  of  the  beginning  of  the  first  and 
the  closing  of  the  last  being  similar.  It  is  uncertain  which 
other  Psalms  were  originally  connected. 

5.  The  forty-three  books  of  the  Bible  were  connected  in 
twenty-four  volumes,  as  they  are  now  before  us  in  the  Mas- 
soretic  text.  Josephus  (Contra  Apion,  i.  8)  reports  twenty- 
two  books  of  Scriptures,  "which  are  justly  believed  to  be 
divine,"  viz. :  five  books  of  Moses,  thirteen  books  of  the 
Prophets,  from  Moses  to  King  Artaxerxes,  and  four  books 
containing  "  hymns  to  God  and  the  precepts  for  the  con- 
duct of  human  life."  Taking  into  the  second  class  of 
Scriptures  "  all  that  was  done  between  Moses  and  Artax- 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  15 

erxee,"  his  thirteen  books  must  have  comprised  Joshua, 
Judges,  Samuel,  Kings,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  twelve 
Minor  Prophets,  Chronicles,  Daniel,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah, 
Ruth  and  Esther.  His  third  division  must  have  consisted 
of  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Job  and  Ecclesiastes,  either  with  the 
Song  of  Solomon  or  without  it,  as  he  never  refers  to  it. 
Lamentations,  called  in  the  Talmud  Kinnoth,  "  elegies,"  was 
counted  with  Jeremiah 

Hieronymus,  although  he  mentions  the  twenty-four 
division  (Prol.in  Reg.),*  and  also  the  Hebrew  names  of  the 
various  parts  thereof,  yet  adopted  the  twenty-two  division 
of  Josephus.  The  Church,  according  to  the  Index  Scrip- 
turarum  Nicephori,  and  the  Anathasian  Index, f  retained  the 
Hieronymus  division,  also  in  the  reconstructed  Septuagint. 

In  all  rabbinical  sources  the  twenty-four  division  only 
Is  mentioned.  It  is  noted  first  in  the  Talmud  ( Taanith  8a), 
in  connection  with  Rabbi  Adda  bar  Ahabah  (second  Chris- 
tian century)  as  an  existing  fact.  Ben  AsherJ  reports  this 
rabbi  as  the  first  Massorite  who  came  after  138  (Christian 
Era)  from  Palestine  to  Babylonia.§  It  seems  possible, 
therefore,  that  the  twenty-four  division  was  established  in 
the  Academy  at  Jamnia,  under  Rabbon  Gamliel  II.  || 

6.  The  twenty-four  books  of  Scriptures  are  divided  into 
three  canons,  Thora,  Nebiim  and  Kethuhim,  "  Law,"  "  Proph- 
ets "  and  "  Hagiography."  This  division  is  as  old  as  the 
post-biblical  traditions  of  the  Hebrews.     The  books  belong- 

*See  also  Wolff,  "  Bibliotheca  Hebraica." 

tCredner,  "  Zur  Geschichte  des  Canons." 

}  Dikdukei  Hat-Taamim,  Strack  Edition,  p.  56. 

§It  is  maintained  in  Tosephoth  to  Baba  Bathra  22a  and  Raehi  to 
Kiddushin  72b,  that  there  were  two  rabbis  of  this  name  and  the 
older  one  was  an  older  cotemporary  of  the  author  of  the  Mishnah. 

II  It  is  evident  from  the  Talmudical  statement  TUi  v  Y"p2  that  a 
revision  of  the  Canon  and  the  elimination  of  the  books  of  Solomon 
and  Ezekiel  from  it  was  proposed  and  discussed  in  that  academy 
under  Gamliel  or  his  immediate  predecessor,  Jochanan  ben  Saccai, 
but  was  not  accomplished,  perhaps  by  the  opposition  of  the  then 
most  important  teacher  of  that  day,  Akiba  ben  Joseph,  who 
declared  even  Song  of  Songs  most  holy. 


16  Main  Divisions  of  Sacred  Scriptures. 

ing  to  each  canon  are  named  in  the  Talmud  (Baba  Bathra 
14).  The  order  of  the  books  following  each  other  in  each 
canon,  as  given  in  the  Talmud,  with  but  one  exception,  was 
preserved  intact  by  the  rabbinical  casuists.* 

In  Prophets  a  difference  of  opinion  prevails  only  as  to 
the  position  of  Isaiah  in  the  prophetical  canon  before  Jere- 
miah or  after  Ezekiel,  which  begins  in  the  Talmud  (in  loco 
cit.)  and  reaches  down  to  the  seventeenth  century.  In 
Hagiography  a  difference  of  opinion  in  the  order  of  the 
books  prevails  with  the  Talmud  and  the  casuists  on  the  one 
side  and  the  authors  of  the  written  Massora  on  the  other. f 

The  printed  Bibles  (Hebrew)  follow  the  order  laid  down 
by  the  rabbis  in  Talmud  and  casuists,  and  place  Isaiah  before 
Jeremiah.  These  differences  being  of  no  particular  impor- 
tance, any  further  investigation  is  unnecessary  in  this  place. 

The  high  antiquity  of  this  three-division  is  evident  from 
the  preface  of  the  Grecian  translation  of  Ben  Sirah's  book, 
about  125  B.  C. ;  from  Josephus  (m  loco  cit.) ;  and  from  the 
rabbinical  records  of  the  post-biblical  traditions,];  although 
it  was  not  adopted  in  the  Septuagint,  Peshito,  Vulgata, 
or  in  the  Christian  Church.  Also  in  Maccabees  II.  13  it 
is  maintained  that  in  the  library  founded  by  Nehemiah 
there  were  the  "  books "  of  the  Kings  and  the  Prophets, 
also  the  "  writings "  of  David  and  the  "  letters "  of  kings 
who  sent  presents  to  the  temple.  This  shows  that  the 
"  writings  "  even  of  David  were  a  different  class  of  scriptures 
from  the  books  of  the  Kings  and  Prophets,  supposed  to  have 
been  the  case  in  the  days  of  Nehemiah.  Ibid.  xv.  9,  the  Law 
and  Prophets  only  are  mentioned  in  connection  with  Judah 
Maccabee,  perhaps  because  the  third  Canon  was  not  estab- 
lished yet  in  his  days. 

*  See  Maimonides,  Hilch.  Sepher  Thorah  vii.  15,  and  Joseph  Caro, 
Joreh  Deah,  Sepher  Thorah,  283,  5. 

+  See  Amsterdam  Rabbinical  Bible  Kohelelh  Shelomo,  of  1724,  pp. 
10,  11;  also  Wolff  iu  Bibl.  Hebr.  Part  II.  p.  5!,  col.  5:  Hierony- 
mus,  ProL  in  Reg 

iFor  instance  Tnamth  So;  Baha  Bathra  9a  and  136;  Sabbath,  14, 
and  ibid.  Talmud,  116';  and  ibid.  Yeru!>halmi  xvi.  1;  Nedarim,  111, 
9;  Meguillah  I.  and  elsewhere. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  17 

7.  This  involves  a  doctrine.  The  rabbis  claimed  plenary- 
inspiration  for  Moses  only  (Baba  Bathra  15a,  and  Mena- 
coth  30a  anOI  "^D^^<  ni^^DI  n^ll^  'ri'yp'rM  and  not  also 
for  the  Prophets.  In  the  synagogue  Moses  only  was  read 
and  expounded,  and  sections  from  the  Prophets  were  read 
in  conclusion  of  exercises  in  the  synagogue  or  academy  to 
be  expounded  by  the  Meturgam.  (See  Rapaport's  Erech 
Millin,  Art.  Nn~lD£3i<).  In  regard  to  the  Hagiography,  the 
ancient  Halacha  was  [0  N'?^  l^DpH  ^DH^^  [Hip  pK 
n'^^O'?!  nnjOn  "  We  read  not  in  the  Hagiography  except 
from  and  after  the  afternoon  service,"  although  it  was  per- 
mitted to  take  texts  from  them  for  the  morning  homilies.* 
So  Hagiography  was  considered  of  inferior  holiness  to 
Prophets  (See  Yerushalmi  in  loco  cit.),  and  Prophets  inferior 
to  the  Pentateuch ;  so  much  so  that  it  was  maintained  that 
Prophets  and  Hagiography  may  in  future  be  abolished, 
because  the  Prophets  have  not  been  permitted  to  add  a  new 
law  to  that  of  Moses ;  and  also,  "  If  Israel  had  not  sinned 
he  would  not  have  been  given  more  than  the  five  Books  of 
the  Law,  and  the  Book  of  Joshua  {Nedarim  226  and  Yerush- 
almi Meguillah  I.l). 

It  appears  that  prior  to  Rabbi  Jehuda  the  Nassi,  it  was 
held  that  the  three  divisions  of  the  Bible  must  not  be  writ- 
ten in  one  scroll,  so  that  they  appear  not  of  equal  holiness. f 
Moses  Maimonides,  according  to  his  responses,  as  given  by 
his  son  Abrahaixi,  in  the  beginning  of  Maaseh  Rokeach,  would 
not  permit  the  three  divisions  of  the  Bible  to  be  written  in 
one  book,  because  reading  in  the  Prophets  or  Hagiography, 
parts  thereof  would  be  placed  upon  the  Thorah,  which  is  not 
permitted,  on  account  of  the  superior  holiness  of  the  Tho- 
rah. "  Prophets  and  Hagiography  must  not  be  placed  upon 
the  Thorah."  {Megillah  "11  a)"^);  D^DinDI  D\S*0:  pjlU  j^KI 

The  rabbis  of  the  Talmud  called  the  Prophets  il'^Dp  ^121 

*  Compare  Tosephta  Sabbath  14  to  Talmud  Yerushalmi,  ibid.  xvi. 
1,  and  BabU  ibid.  1166. 

+  Mescheth  Sophrim  III.  and  the  Talmudical  passages  noted  there 
by  Naumburg  in  his  Nachlath  Jacob,  and  by  Asulai  in  his  Peruih. 


18  Main  Divisions  of  Sacred  Scriptures. 

"Words  of  Tradition,"  and  not  IH^^u'  il'^)n  "the  written 
Thorah"  or  }<rimN,  and  advanced  the  hermeneutic  rule, 
]T&?^  i<^  ii7'2p  nmO  nnin  n^n*  "  We  teach  not  mat- 
ters of  the  law  (basing  upon)  words  of  the  Prophets." 

The  Tiberian  Massorites  also  call  the  Thorah  Oritha, 
"  Canon,"  and  the  other  books  of  Scriptures  Ashlamtn,  "sup- 
plement or  addendum."  The  Karaites  rejected  this  doctrine, 
and  consider  the  whole  Bible  equally  holy,  as  the  Chris- 
tians do. 

8.  Maimonides  expounds  the  respective  passages  from 
the  ancient  rabbinical  literature  to  this  effect,  f  The  pro- 
phetical power  of  Moses,  like  his  mission  and  his  power  to 
work  miracles,  was  unique  and  superior  to  all  prophets  who 
lived  before  or  after  him.  Therefore  the  Thorah  is  the  holi- 
est book ;  it  never  was  and  never  will  be  changed  or 
replaced ;  it  is  eternal.  Among  the  other  prophets  there 
were  higher  and  lower  degrees  of  perfection,  so  that  not  all 
passages  of  prophetical  Scriptures  are  of  equal  divinity; 
they  are  clearly  distinguished  by  their  various  introductions. 
He  speaks  of  eleven  degrees  of  prophetical  inspiration,  all 
inferior  to  the  inspiration  of  Moses  and  superior  in  nine  de- 
grees to  the  authors  of  Hagiography,  including  Daniel,  the 
Judges  and  Kings  of  Israel,  with  David  and  Solomon.  These 
Hagiographists  wrote,  spoke  or  performed  deeds  of  valor  by 
a  divine  impulse  and  assistance  called  l^lTpH  HI")  "the 
Holy  Spirit,"  which  comprises  only  the  first  and  second  de- 
grees of  inspiration,  leading  to  the  prophetical  degrees. 
Therefore,  Hagiography  is  less  divine  than  Prophets,  and 
both  less  divine  than  the  Thorah. 

In  Moreh  I.  27,  Maimonides  points  to  Onkelos,  the  first 
Aramaic  translator  of  the  Pentateuch  (beginning  of  the  sec- 

*(Hagigai  106,  Niddah  23fi,  Baba  Kammah  b),  on  which  point  see 
Skene  Luchoth  Habberith  (n'bf)-  They  also  called  the  whole  Bible 
Nlpa  the  "  Reading,"  the  literature  which  ia  read,  in  contradistinc- 
tion of  the  oral  laws  and  traditions,  which  were  spoken  and  not 
read. 

t  Moreh,  Part  II.,  chap.  32,  e.  s. ;  Yesodei  hat- Thorn,  chaptera  7 
to  10. 


Proxaos  to  Holy  Writ.  19 

end  Christian  century),  as  an  additional  authority  for  the 
distinction  made  among  the  prophetical  passages  of  Scrip- 
tures according  to  the  higher  or  lower  degree  of  the  prophet 
in  the  scale  of  inspiration.  Then  in  Part  II.,  chapter  45, 
where  he  describes  the  various  degrees  of  prophecy,  he  sets 
down  the  Scriptural  terms  which  distinguish  the  various 
passages  and  characterize  them. 

9.  The  division  of  the  Thorah  into  five  books  is  men- 
tioned continually  in  the  Talmud  and  its  sources  {Muhna 
Forna,  viii.  1),  and  es]3ecially  in  Yerushalmi  Sotah  v.  6: 
"  Moses  wrote  five  books  of  the  Thorah,  and  then  again  he 
wrote  the  section  of  Balak  and  Balaam."  Its  antiquity  is 
demonstrated  by  the  most  ancient  translations  of  the  Penta- 
teuch— the  Greek,  Syriac  and  Aramaic — by  Josephus  and 
Philo,  and  especially  by  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  all  of 
which  are  precisely  the  same  five  books,  with  some  slight 
inversions  in  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  in  favor  of  Samari- 
tan doctrine. 

(a)  il'^L^NID  (Bereshith),  which  is  the  first  word  of  the 
Bible,  called  by  the  Greeks  ''  Genesis,"  consists  of  fifty  chap- 
ters (modern  division),  forty-three  Sedarim  (ancient  divi- 
sion) and  1,534  verses,  the  midst  of  the  liook  in  verses  is 
xxvii.  40.  Genesis  contains  the  history  of  creation,  the  first 
parents  and  their  three  sons,  the  genealogy  of  the  ten  antedi- 
luvian patriarchs,  the  Noachian  deluge  and  covenant,  the 
post-Noachian  genealogy,  origin  and  location  of  the  seventy 
nations,  including  the  building  of  the  Tower  of  Babel,  the 
subsequent  dispersion  of  the  families  and  the  origin  of  lan- 
guages ;  and  begins  in  the  twelfth  chapter  with  the  life,  cove- 
nant and  circumcision  of  Abraham,  which  together  with  the 
history  of  the  three  generations  of  his  descendants,  make  the 
contents  of  the  whole  book.  It  is  all  simple  prose  except  iv. 
22,  24,  Lemech's  address  to  his  wives,  and  chapter  xlix.,  the 
blessings  of  Jacob,  which  are  primitive  poetry  in  a  peculiar 
form. 

(b)  rilOC'  ( Shemoth),  vfhich  is  the  first  noun  in  this  book, 
called  by  the  Greeks  "  Exodus,"  consists  of  forty  chapters 
(modern  division),  29  Sedarim  (ancient  division),  1,209 
verses,  the  midst  thereof  is  xxii.  27.     It  contains  the  history 


20   '         Main  Divisions  of  Sacred  Scriptures. 

of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt,  the  birth,  early  fate  and  calling  of 
Moses  (Mosheh)  and  Aaron,  the  struggle  for  liberation,  the 
miracles,  the  exode  from  Egypt,  the  passage  through  the  Red 
Sea  and  the  Song  of  Moses,  voyage  from  the  sea  to  the  wilder- 
ness of  Sinai,  including  the  organization  at  Marah,*  and  the 
war  against  Amalek,  water  from  the  rock  and  the  manna ; 
then  the  revelation  on  Mount  Sinai,  the  primeval  cult  (xx. 
21-23)  and  the  first  Mosaic  legislation,  including  in  xxiii. 
10,  11  Leviticus  xxv.,  the  laws  of  the  Sabbath  and  Jubilee 
years  ;  and  in  Exodus  xxiii.  14-19  the  laws  from  ibid.  xii.  14- 
27,  33-49,  and  chapter  xiii.  1-16,  concerning  Passover,  other 
holy  days,  and  the  sanction  given  to  the  first-born  as  the 
priests  of  the  people.  Chapter  xxiv.  closes  the  history  of  the 
revelation  and  the  establishment  of  the  covenant.  From 
chapter  xxv.  to  the  end  of  the  book,  with  the  exception  of 
chapters  xxxii.,  xxxiii.  and  xxxiv.  contains  all  appertain- 
ing to  the  construction  of  the  national  sanctuary  and  its  furni- 
ture, the  priestly  garments,  and  the  form  of  worship  in  the 
tabernacle,  being  evidently  an  introduction  to  Leviticus, 
while  the  chapters  xxxii.  to  xxxiv.  are  evidently  the  conclu- 
sion of  Exodus.  The  whole  book,  with  the  exception  of  the 
song  at  the  Red  Sea,  is  prosaic. 

(c)     N~lp^1  (  Vayikra),  which  is  the  first  word  of  the  book, 

called  in  the  Talmud  Thorath  Kohanim,  "  the  Thorah  of  the 
Priests,"  and  by  the  Greeks  "  Leviticus,"  consists  of  twenty- 
seven  chapters  (modern  division),  23  Sedarim  (ancient 
division),  859  verses,  the  midst  thereof  is  xv.  7.  It  contains 
from  chapter  i.  to  vii.  ordinances  and  prescriptions  concern- 
ing sacrifices  not  properly  belonging  to  the  tabernacle  cult. 
From  chapter  viii.  to  x.,  to  which  belongs  also  chapter  xvi., 
is  the  detailed  history  of  the  dedication  of  the  tabernacle, 
which  actually  belongs  after  Exodus  xl.,  between  the  verses 
33  and  34.  It  was  placed  here  as  the  proper  introduction  to 
the  ritual  laws  from  chapters  xi.  to  xxiv.,  outlined  in  chapter 
x.  verses  10  and  11  as  the  duties  of  the  priests,  "to  distin- 

*  Exodus  XV.  22-26,  which  appears  to  be  identical  with  the  organ- 
ization in  ibid,  chapter  xviii.,  following  the  advice  of  Jethro.  The 
ancient  rabbis  are  of  another  opinion. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  21 

guish  between  the  holy  and  the  profane,  the  unclean  and  the 
clean,  and  to  teach  the  children  of  Israel  all  the  ordinances 
which  God  hath  spoken  concerning  them  by  the  hand  of 
Moses."  Chapter  xix.  specifies  particularly  the  material  for 
this  third  priestly  duty.  Chapter  xxii.  contains  the  laws 
concerning  the  jjriests  personally  and  exclusively.  Chapters 
xxiii.  and  xxiv.  repeat  the  commandments  of  the  holy  days 
to  specify  the  prescribed  sacrifices  for  those  days  and  th« 
priests'  duties  concerning  them.  This  last  chapter  concludes 
with  the  story  of  the  blasphemer  in  the  wilderness  and  the 
laws  connected  therewith,  and  this  seems  to  be  the  proper 
conclusion  of  the  book.  Chapter  xxv.  on  Sabbath  and  Jubi- 
lee years  and  the  poor  laws  connected  therewith,  and  chap- 
ter xxiv.  containing  prophecies  of  Moses,  as  the  heading  of 
the  former  and  the  conclusion  of  the  latter  shows,  belong  to 
the  close  of  Exodus,  the  first  Mosaic  legislation.  Chapter 
xxvii.,  containing  the  laws  of  valuation  and  ransom  of  per- 
sons, animals  and  things  vowed  to  the  sanctuary,  in  which 
the  priest  is  concerned  and  the  year  of  Jubilee  referred  to,  is 
a  proper  conclusion  of  both  the  first  legislation  of  Moses 
and  the  laws  of  the  cult,  and  concludes  well  the  book  of 
Leviticus. 

(d)  ^DIDD  (Bamidbar)  which  is  the  first  word  in  the 
book  after  "  The  Lord  spake  to  Moses,"  called  in  the  Talmud 
D^mpfin  tJ^On  one  of  the  five  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  re- 
ferring to  the  numbering,  and  by  the  Greeks  "  Numbers," 
consists  of  thirty-six  chapters  (modern  division),  32  Sedarim 
(ancient  division),  1,288  verses,  the  midst  thereof  is  xvii. 
20.  This  book  is  fragmentary.  It  begins  with  the  census 
and  organization  of  the  camj)  in  the  wilderness,  in  which 
the  Levites  are  taken  separately,  which  could  have  been  or- 
dained only  a^ter  the  appointment  of  the  Levites  instead  of 
the  first-born,  hence  after  the  revolt  of  Korah,  narrated  in 
chapter  xvi.,  to  which  is  clearly  referred  in  iv.  28.  This 
part,  including  ordinances  concerning  the  Levites,  closes 
V.  1-4,  an  ordinance  concerning  the  hygiene  of  the  camp,  to 
which  is  added  an  additional  law  concerning  trespass,  which 
actually  belongs  to  Leviticus.  Then  follow  in  chapters  v. 
and  vi.  the  laws  concerning  the  suspected  woman,  Sotah,  and 


22  ■  Main  DivisiOxNs  of  Sacred  Scriptures. 

the  Nazirite  (Nazir),  one  who  vowed  abstinence  from  wine 
and  observed  special  cleanness  and  purification.  From  vi. 
22  to  the  end  of  vii.  follows  a  sequel  to  the  dedication  of  the 
tabernacle,  the  gifts  and  sacrifices  of  the  twelve  princes  of 
the  tribes,  headed  by  the  oldest  liturgical  formula  on  record, 
the  priestly  benediction.  Chapter  viii.  begins  with  an  addi- 
tional prescription  concerning  the  candlestick  in  the  taber- 
nacle, followed  by  ordinances  for  the  Levites.  Chapter  ix. 
contains  the  ordinance  of  a  substitute  Passover  in  the  second 
month  for  those  Avho  were  not  in  condition  to  observe  it 
properly  in  the  first  month,  and  concludes  with  the  signals 
given  in  the  camp  by  the  pillar  of  cloud  upon  the  tabernacle. 
Chapter  x.  begins  with  the  signals  given  in  the  camp  with 
two  trumpets,  also  their  use  at  the  sacrifices  ;  continues  with 
the  marching  regulation,  and  the  names  of  the  captains  of 
the  tribes,  and  of  the  four  divisions  ;  then  follows  the  engage- 
ment of  Chobab  as  a  guide  in  the  wilderness,  and  in  con- 
clusion two  brief  prayers  of  Moses,  one  starting  the  host  and 
another  calling  it  to  rest.  Chapter  xi.  contains  the  story  of 
the  quails,  and  the  constitution  of  the  council  of  the  seventy 
elders.  Chapter  xii.  narrates  the  murmuring  of  Miriam  and 
Aaron  against  Moses,  and  the  definition  of  true  prophecy. 
Chapters  xiii.  and  xiv.  narrate  the  story  of  the  twelve  spies  ; 
chapter  xv.  is  an  addition  to  Leviticus,  then  the  story  of  the 
Sabbath-breaker  in  the  wilderness,  closing  remarkably  with 
the  ordinance  of  the  national  fringes  and  colors.  Chapters 
xvi.,  xvii.  and  xviii.  narrate  the  story  of  the  Korach  revolt 
and  its  consequences,  together  with  additional  ordinances 
for  the  Levites  ;  xix.  tells  the  ordinances  concerning  the  red 
heifer  and  its  ashes  of  purification.  With  chapter  xx.  begin 
the  historical  notices  from  thirty-seven  years  later,  inter- 
spersed in  chapters  xxii.  to  xxiv.  by  the  account  of  Balak 
and  Balaam  and  his  poems.  Chapter  xxv.  contains  the 
appointment  of  Phineas  to  the  high  priesthood.  With  chap- 
ter xxvi.  begins  the  second  census  and  the  second  legisla- 
tion of  Moses,  which  is  continued  and  closed  in  Deuteron- 
omy.    Except  the  poems  of  Balaam  it  is  all  prosaic. 

(e)     D^'n^T    (Debarim),  which    is  the  first  noun  of   the 
book,  called  also  nnn  HTC^f^  {Mi^hneh  Thnrah),  "Review 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  23 

of  the  Thorah"  (Dent.  xvii.  18),  and  by  the  Greeks  "  Deuter- 
onomy," consists  of  thirty-four  chapters  (modern  division), 
twenty-seven  Sedarim  (ancient  division),  955  verses,  the 
midst  thereof  is  xvii.  10. 

It  contains  from  chapter  i.  to  xi.  and  xxvi.  to  xxxi.  9,  the 
last  speeches  and  prophecies  of  Moses  ;  from  xii.  to  xxv.  the 
continuation  of  the  second  legislation  of  Moses  expounding 
and  amending  the  first  as  required  for  the  practice  in  the 
land  which  the  Israelites  now  approached.  Chapter  xxxi. 
contains  the  inauguration  of  Joshua  and  the  delivery  of  the 
former  Thorah  to  the  custody  of  the  Levites,  to  be  kept  at 
the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  and  the  delivery  of 
Deuteronomy  to  the  Levites  and  all  the  elders  of  Israel, 
commanding  also  that  it  be  read  in  public  during  the  clos- 
ing feast  of  the  Sabbath  year.  Chapter  xxxii.  contains  the 
last  song  of  Moses ;  the  first  is  in  Exodus  xv.  Chapter 
xxxiii.  contains  the  blessing  and  departure  of  Moses. 

The  whole  Thorah  contains  5,845  verses,  the  middle  of 
which  is  Leviticus  viii.  8.  The  middle  of  all  its  words  is  in 
Leviticus  x.  16.  Darosch  closes  the  first,  and  Darash  opens 
the  second  half.  The  middle  of  all  its  letters  is  the  vav 
of  the  word  ptl-H  in  Leviticus  xi.  42. 

10.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  divisions  of  the  Bible, 
according  to  the  traditions  and  documents  of  the  Hebrews, 
reach  up  to  the  time  of  the  original  establishment  of  the 
three  canons.  There  exist  no  traditions  and  no  documents 
in  this  matter  in  antiquity  or  explicitness  approximately 
equal  to  those  of  the  Israelites. 

It  is  no  less  certain  that  the  subdivisions  of  every  biblical 
book  into  major  and  minor  paragraphs,  verses,  words  and 
the  counting  of  letters,  were  fixed  and  carefully  noted  by  the 
ancient  scribes.  It  seems,  therefore,  impossible  that  the 
text,  at  least  in  its  consonantal  letters,  could  have  been 
amended  or  interpolated  at  any  time  within  the  two  thou- 
sand years  of  Hebrew  post-biblical  traditions  and  docu- 
mentary records.  But  the  question  in  criticism  goes  far 
beyond  that,  and  the  critics  rely  more  on  a  priori  argument 
than  on  documentary  evidence,  a  species  of  reasoning  which 
appears  illegitimate  to  us,  if  applied  to  the  investigation  of 


24  Main  Divisions  of  Sacred  Scriptures. 

facts  and  traditions  based  on  the  testimony  of  documents. 
Therefore,  before  we  can  discuss  the  question  of  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  Pentateuch,  the  authorship  of  Moses  and  the 
kindred  topics,  we  must  first  ascertain  all  the  facts  from  the 
documents  which  have  a  bearing  on  the  main  question. 
This,  and  this  only,  can  lead  to  approximate  certainty.  It 
is  the  entire  Hebrew  Bible  we  must  know  first,  to  collect 
therefrom  the  system  of  facts  by  which  certitude  in  this 
matter  can  be  obtained. 


CHAPTER    II. 

THE    FIRST    CANON. 

THE  term  Canon  is  of  Greek  origin,  and  is,  in  its  ecclesi- 
astical application,  merely  an  equivalent  for  "  Thorah," 
the  emphatic  teaching  or  instruction,  the  authoritative  guide 
in  religion  and  morals.  The  term  was  applied,  however,  to 
the  whole  collection  of  the  Hebrews'  sacred  books,  and  ex- 
tended also  to  the  Apocrypha  of  the  Old  Testament  by  some 
early  Christian  writers.  The  Hebrews  always  counted  the 
Apocrypha  among  D"'J11^n  DHGDi  "outside  books"  (San- 
hedriii  1006),  and  no  quotations  from  either,  except  from  the 
book  of  Ben  Sirah,  occur  in  the  Talmud.  The  position  of 
Prophets  and  Hagiography  in  the  Canon  has  been  defined. 
Although  accepted  as  divine,  yet  they  are  KHD'^tJ'J^,  "  appen- 
dices or  supplements,"  to  the  Canon  or  Thorah.  We  con- 
sider them  canons  with  these  restrictions,  because  such  is 
the  common  conception  of  the  term. 

2.  The  reason  for  classifying  the  sacred  books  besides 
the  Thorah,  as  the  Hebrews  always  did,  appears  to  be 
chronological.  They  were  canonized  or  edited  for  the  use 
and  guidance  of  the  people  in  different  times.  Joshua, 
Judges,  Samuel  and  Kings  are  called  D^JtJ^J^")  D*N^DJ» 
"Former  Prophets,"  while  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel  and 
Minor  Prophets  are  called  D'^'inj^  D^K^Dl  "  Latter  Proph- 
ets," although  the  prophecies  proper  are  contained  in  the  lat- 
ter collection,  and  Daniel  is  omitted  altogether.  So  are 
Lamentations,  Ruth,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Song  of  Solomon  and 
Ecclesiastes.  According  to  the  chronological  order  of  the 
supposed  origin  of  these  books,  they  could  not  have  been 
classified  as  they  are.  The  distinction  between  prophetical 
books  and  others  could  not  have  guided  them,  as  Former 
Prophets  contains  only  prophetical  fragments,  while  Daniel 
claims  to  be  entirely  prophetical.     We  are  forced,  therefore, 


26  The  First  Canon. 

to  accept  the  theory  that  these  traditional  divisions  of  the 
Canon  had  their  origin  in  the  relative  chronological  succes- 
sion of  their  canonization.  Therefore,  the  historical  books 
canonized  at  an  early  date  are  called  Former  Prophets.  The 
whole  of  Prophets  having  been  canonized  prior  to  Hagiog- 
raphy,  assumed  a  higher  and  holier  character  than  the  latter 
in  the  estimation,  tradition  and  veneration  of  the  people, 
upon  which  the  Scribes  based  the  dogma  of  its  superiority. 
It  is,  therefore,  evident  that  the  Thorah,  occupying  the  high- 
est position  in  the  people's  estimation,  tradition  and  venera- 
tion, must  have  been  Canon  in  Israel  long  before  the  other 
books  of  the  Bible.  We  know  to  a  certainty  that  this  was 
the  case  in  the  time  of  Judah  Maccabee,  when  the  Scroll  of 
the  Law  was  the  only  holy  emblem  of  the  Synagogue  (I. 
Maccabees  iii.  47,  48)  ;  that  the  official  translators  of  Ptolemy 
Philadelphus  were  required  to  Grecise  the  Thorah  only  ;  that 
the  Samaritans  adopted  only  the  Thorah  and  no  other  book 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  and  that  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
placed  the  Thorah  only  before  the  assembled  people  on  that 
solemn  occasion,  and  this  only  was  accepted  as  the  Canon. 
(Xehemiah  viii.  and  ix.)  In  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem  the 
reading  of  sections  from  the  Thorah  only  was  part  of  the 
divine  service  (Mishnah  in  Yoma),  and  the  official  correctors 
of  manuscripts  in  the  Temple  Azarah,  as  far  as  we  know, 
limited  their  labor  to  the  Thorah  chiefly  or  exclusively,  for 
which  they  were  paid  out  of  the  tithe  fund. 

Besides  all  these  points,  it  is  a  fact  that  every  one  of  the 
prophets  points  to  the  Thorah  Canon,  and  none  to  the  teach- 
ings of  his  predecessors  as  being  of  an  equal  authority,  as 
shall  be  proved  hereafter. 

3.  The  very  first  canon,  for  the  existence  of  which  we 
possess  documentary  evidence,  was  that  of  the  Patriarchs, 
contained  in  Genesis,  viz. :  the  Thorah  of  Adam,  the  Thorah 
of  Noah,  the  Thorah  of  Abraham  and  the  other  Patriarchs.* 
Basing  upon  the  Thorah  of  the  Patriarchs  and  progressing 
from  the  rules  of  conduct  ordained  for  the  individual  and 
family  to  those  of  a  nation  and  nations,  follows  the  second 

*See  Albo's  Ikkarim,  III.  13,  14. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  27 

part  of  the  first  canon,  viz. :  (a)  the  Sinaic  Thorah,  con- 
tained  originally  in  the  Jin^H  "l5D  "  Book  of  the  Cove- 
nant,"* now  contained  in  Exodus  and  Leviticus;  f  and  (6) 
D^Jm^  ilTin  the  Thorah  of  (or  for)  the  Priests,  establish- 
ing the  polity  and  ritual  in  harmony  with  the  teachings  of 
the   Thorah,   now  interconnected  with  the  "  Book  of  the 
Covenant"  in  these  three  books  of  the  Pentateuch.     Basins: 
upon  these  two  canons,  reviewing,  expounding  and  amend- 
ing, follows  the  fourth  part  of  the  first  canon,  viz.  (c)  :  niin 
T^t^D   the  "  Thorah  of  Moses,"J  now  contained  chiefly  in 
Deuteronomy,  and  parts  of  it  also  in  Numbers.   A  fifth  class 
of  writings  entering  into  the  composition  of  the  Thorah  as  a 
whole,  and  especially  in  Numbers,  consists  of  the  "  Scrolls," 
also  believed  to  be  of  Mosaic  origin,  mentioned  in  the  Tal- 
mud, n:n^  H'^JID  n'?^-::  n"lin  the  "  Thorah  was  given  (or 
preserved)  in  various  scrolls"  (Guitin  60),  for  which  also  we 
possess  documentary  evidence. 
4.     The  following  Mosaic  scrolls  are  noticed  particularly : 
(a)     The  story  and  poems  of  Balaam  (Numbers  xxii.  and 
xxiii.),  concerning  which  it  is  maintained  in  the  Talmud 
quoted   above   (Bab.  B.  14,  and  Yerushalmi   Sotah  v.  6), 
"  Moses  wrote  five  books  of  the  Thorah,  and  then  again  he 

■ — (— — — — ■ 

*  Exodus  xxiv.  15;   2  Kings  xxii.,  xxiii.;   2  Chronicles  xxxiv., 

XXXV. 

tin  regard  to  the  contents  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  see 
Mechilta  in  Bachodesh,  section  3.  One  of  the  Tana'im  (his  name  is 
given  differently  here  and  in  Yalkut)  holds  that  it  contained  all  from 
Genesis  i.  to  Exodus  xxiv.  Rabbi  Jehudah,  the  Prince,  holds  it 
contained  the  commandments  only  which  were  given  to  Adam,  the 
children  of  Noah,  Abraham,  in  Egypt,  at  Marah,  and  the  other  com- 
mandments. Rabbi  Ishmael  holds  it  contained  also  Leviticus  xxv. 
and  xxvi.,  as  the  first  verse  of  xxv.  and  the  last  of  xxvi.  jjlainly 
show.  It  appears  most  likely  that  originally  Exodus  xxiv.  was  the 
end  of  the  book,  to  which  Moses  later  on  added  Leviticus  xxv.  and 
xxvi. 

iSee  2  Kings  xiv.  G;  the  quotation  from  nr?2  niin  is  from  Deut. 
xxiv.  16;  2  Kings  xxi.  8;  one  Thorah  is  referred  to  in  cn-'i  and 
then  another  in  n'Zn  ^I2:p  C.TX  HVi  irS  rn'On  Compare  also 
Deuteronomy  xxxiii.  4;  Joshua  i.  7,  8;  viii.  30;  xi.  15. 


28  The  First  Canon. 

wrote  the  chapter  on  Balak  and  Balaam,"  and  mentioned 
again  in  Deuteronomy  xxiii.  6;  Joshua  xxiv.  9,  10,  and 
Micah  vi.  5,  as  a  well-known  fact. 

(b)  The  Book  of  the  Journeys.  It  is  mentioned  espe- 
cially that  Moses  also  wrote  by  divine  command  the  history 
of  the  exode  from  Egypt  and  the  sojourn  of  Israel  in  the 
wilderness,  as  stated  in  plain  terms,  Numbers  xxxiii.  ^nD"*! 
»»  ^5  '?j;  DH^yOD'?  DH'Nl^TD  ilN*  HC^O  "And  Moses  wrote 
their  goings  out  according  to  their  journeys  at  the  command 
of  Jehovah."  This  document  may  have  originally  contained 
the  historical  notes  connected  with  these  stations  in  the 
wilderness,  as  is  evident  from  verses  3-5  and  perhaps  also 
various  laws  made  known  on  such  different  occasions,  all  of 
which  may  have  been  afterward  detached  and  placed  else- 
where, as  the  plan  of  the  whole  book  required. 

(c)  There  is  noticed  in  Numbers  xxi.  14  mDll'T'O  "15D 
"  The  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jehovah,"  and  a  passage  is 
quoted  from  it.  This,  critics  maintain,  must  be  a  book  older 
than  the  Thorah.  We  maintain  that  no  war  of  Jehovah 
could  have  existed  prior  to  Moses,  and  Moses  was  particu- 
larly commanded  to  write,  or  rather  to  start,  such  a  book 
right  after  the  first  war  of  Jehovah,  which  was  waged  against 
Amalek,  as  recorded  in  Exodus  xvii.  14.*  "  And  Jehovah 
said,  write  this  as  a  memorial  in  the  book,"  etc.,  which 
could  mean  a  special  book  only,  a  book  for  that  purpose, 
viz. :  to  record  the  Wars  of  Jehovah.  It  stands  to  reason 
that  Moses  obeyed  the  divine  command,  consequently  he 
was  the  author  of  the  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jehovah,  as  far  as 
his  time  was  concerned. 

(d)  There  existed  another  ancient  book  "ItT^H  ")3D  "  The 
Book  of  Jashar,"  quoted  in  Joshua  x.  12-13,  and  2  Samuel  ii. 
17-27,  which  also  appears  to  have  been  started  by  Moses,  or 
found  by  him  among  his  people  and  continued ;  as  some  of 
the  rabbis  in  the  Talmud  maintain  that  Jashar  stands  for 
Jesharim,  and  it  signifies  the  Book  of  the  Righteous,  viz. : 
Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob.    According  to  the  extant  quota- 


*  This  is  suggested  by  Abraham  Ibn  Ezra  and  Targum  Yerush- 
aimi  to  this  verse. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  29 

tions  from  that  book,  it  must  have  been  a  collection  of  the 
people's  didactic  and  epic  poems,  to  which  the  song  at  the 
Red  Sea,  beginning  Oz  Yashir,  as  does  also  the  quotation  in 
Numbers  (xxi.  17)  and  another  in  Joshua  (x.  12),  may  have 
given  the  name  of  Jnshar.  It  is  stated  expressly  (Deuter- 
onomy xxxi.)  that  God  commanded  Moses  to  write  the  last 
song  (Deuteronomy  xxxii.),  and  that  he  did  write  it  that 
day.  It  seems  to  be  reasonable  to  suppose  that  this  and 
other  songs  of  Moses  started  the  Book  of  Jashar  as  he  did 
the  Book  of  Wars.  D''?Cn*:n  V"i::N^  p  ^^  "  Therefore  the 
Moshelim  said,"  in  Numbers  xxi.,  being  a  poem,  Moshelim  sig- 
nifying "  poets,"  as  well  as  "  rulers,"  and  in  that  book 
"  mashal,"  in  the  case  of  Balaam  I'^ii'D  my^  signifying 
"  poetry,"  it  is  very  likely  anyhow  that  the  passage  is  a 
quotation  from  the  same  Book  of  Jashar,  whose  authors 
were  called  Moshelim. 

(e)  "The  Book  of  Generations."  nil^lD  130  (See 
Lekach  Tob  to  Genesis  v.)  This  book  is  mentioned  first  in 
Genesis  v.,  although  neither  the  term  writing  nor  book 
occurs  again  in  Genesis.*  Genealogies  reoccur  in  Exodus 
and  chiefly  in  Numbers,  called  in  later  times  t^HTl  ")5D 
(Nehemiah  vii.  5),  and  must  of  necessity  always  have  been 
kept  among  the  ancient  Hebrews,  as  all  titles  to  landed 
property  and  most  important  political  rights  depended  on 
the  individual's  authentic  family  and  tribal  records.  This 
term  I^D  could  have  been  added  at  that  particular  place 
only  to  inform  us  that  the  Israelites,  prior  to  Moses,  possessed 
a  written  genealogy  reaching  back  to  Adam,  or  that  Moses 
started  also  this  official  book ;  anyhow,  it  is  of  Mosaic  or 
pre-Mosaic  origin,  as  are  other  documents  accepted  into 
Genesis. 

From  time  to  time  important  national  matter  may  have 
been  added  to  these  various  scrolls  or  books.  Moses  may 
have  entered  into  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  in  his  last  days, 
the  Covenant  in  the  Plain  of  Moab  (Deuteronomy  xxviii.), 
or  it  may  have  been  a  separate  scroll  added  to  Deuteronomy 
afterward.     Joshua  may  have    entered   his   covenant   with 

*  Except  in  the  case  of  the  Egyptian  D'')DWin  Genesis  xH.  8. 


30  The  Fikst  Canon. 

Israel  at  Shechem  in  this  scroll  or  book,  as  is  mentioned 
especially  (Joshua  xxiv.  26)  D^IDIH  ilK  ^dll^  2ny) 
D*n'7N*  niin  "I£3D3  n^>^n  "And  Joshua  wrote  these  words 
in  the  Book  of  the  Thorah  of  Elohim,"  not  in  the  Thorah  of 
Moses,  as  usual  in  this  book.  Samuel  may  have  entered  his 
constitution  of  royalty  in  the  same  book,  as  it  is  stated  there 
(1  Samuel  x.  25):  SiDD3  DDD^I  "He  wrote  (it)  in  the 
book,"  and  not  in  a  book,  as  this  was  also  a  covenant,  viz.  : 
with  royalty.  So  likewise  all  the  wars  of  Joshua  and  after 
him,  down  perhaps  to  Samuel,  may  have  been  recorded  in 
the  Book  of  Wars,  and  all  national  hymns,  like  that  of 
Deborah,  and  David's  song,  Kesheth,  perhaps  many  now 
incorporated  in  the  Book  of  Psalms,  like  Psalm  cxiv.,  may 
have  been  entered  in  the  Book  of  Jashar,  as  these  were  the 
official  records  of  the  nation  started  by  Moses.  Other 
special  laws  of  Moses  and  records  of  his  time,  like  the 
description  of  the  tabernacle  and  its  furniture,  the  appoint- 
ment and  functions  of  the  Levitical  priesthood,  the  particu- 
lars about  the  sacrificial  polity,  may  just  as  well  have  existed 
in  different  smaller  scrolls  from  the  hands  of  Moses. 

5.  Deuteronomy  was  originall}'  written  and  delivered  by 
Moses  to  the  priests  and  all  the  elders  of  Israel  (Deuter. 
xxxi.  9).  It  was  intended  to  be  the  popular  canon  in  the 
hands  of  all  who  could  read ;  to  be  read  publicly  at  stated 
times  (ibid.  10-13  ;  2  Chronicles,  xvii.  7-9) ;  to  be  the  text- 
book for  the  young  (Deuter.  vi.  7 ;  xi.  18,  19) ;  to  be  copied 
by  the  king  and  to  be  continually  before  his  eyes  (ibid.  xvii. 
18,  19 ;  1  Kings  ii.  3 ;  Psalms  i.  2) ;  to  be  Avritten  on  the 
twelve  stones  taken  out  of  the  Jordan*  (Deuter.  xxvii.  1-8; 
Joshua  viii.  30-35).  This  Thorah  of  Moses  was  never  for- 
gotten and  never  set  aside  in  Israel,  not  even  in  times  of 
prevailing  Pagan  corruption,  also  not  in  the  kingdom  of 
Israel,  and  was  always  read  at  stated  times  in  the  temple  as 
late  even  as  in  the  time  of  Agrippa  I.  (Mishnah  in  Sot  ah 
vii.  7.) 


*Only  that  portion,  perhaps,  which  is  contained  in  Deuteronomy 
xxvii.  and  xxviii.,  as  appears  from  Joshua  viii.  14,  where  n^lDn 
n'-7~'pm    is  mentioned  with  particular  stress  in  explanation  of  HN 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  31 

The  assumed  difference  of  diction  which  critics  suppose  to 
distinguish  Deuteronomy  and  characterize  it  as  a  work  of 
later  origin  than  the  former  books  of  the  Thorah,  is  imaginary- 
only.    The  laws  in  Deuteronomy  differ  in  nowise  from  those 
in  the  former  books.     Wherever  any  former  law  is  repeated, 
it   is   amended   with   some  additional  provision,  as  Rabbi 
Ishmael   has   put   down  in  the  Talmud    (Sotah  3a)  as  a 
hermeneutic  maxim.     The  speeches  and  prophecies  of  Mo- 
ses differ  from  his  juridical  diction,  as  the  orator's  style 
must,  but  they  differ  not  from  his  previous  rhetorical  pas- 
sages, as  for  instance,  Exodus  xxxii.  to  xxxiv.,  Leviticus 
xxvi.,  and  especially  Numbers  after  chapter  xx.     The  last 
Song  of  Moses  differs  from  the  first  as  the  rigid  moralist's 
didactic  poem  differs  from  his  triumphal  lyric  effusion.    But 
suppose  there  was  such  a  difference,  it  must  be  admitted 
that  forty  years'  literary  and  oratorical  practice  changes  the 
diction  of  every  man  of  genius.     Besides  all  that  the  critics 
possess  no  reliable  standard  by  which  to  fix  the  age  of  any 
portion  in  the  ancient  classical  Hebrew. 

6.  Being  once  admitted  that  Moses  was  the  author  of  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant,  the  various  scrolls  mentioned,  and 
Book  of  Deuteronomy,  it  must  also  be  admitted  that  he  was 
the  author  of  the  Book  of  Genesis,  for  (a)  it  is  no  more  and 
no  less  than  a  historical  introduction  to  the  Mosaic  Scrip- 
tures, as  the  first  eleven  chapters  are  the  introduction  to  the 
history  of  the  patriarchs.  It  establishes  the  main  doctrines 
of  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  such  as  God  being  supermun- 
dane. Creator,  Preserver  and  Governor  of  the  world,  the 
Providence,  sovereign  law-giver  and  supreme  judge  of  man ; 
man  being  the  highest,  spiritual,  physical  and  God-like 
being  on  earth,  standing  in  perpetual  connection  with  the 
Deity  by  his  understanding  and  conscience,  if  he  obeys  the 
commandments  of  his  INIaker ;  and  especially  the  covenants 
between  God  and  Noah,  God  and  Abraham,  to  be  inherited 
by  their  posterity.  (6)  The  next  object  of  Genesis  is  to 
establish  the  title  of  the  children  of  Israel  to  the  land  of 
Canaan,  which  is  the  very  foundation  of  the  Mosaic  policy, 
(c)  The  whole  plan  of  Genesis  is  to  present  the  regular  devel- 
opment and  steady  progress  of  the  revelation  of  Deity  in  the 


32  -         The  First  Canon. 

human  consciousness,  and  the  consequent  generation  of  the 
ethical  principles  from  the  progressive  cognition  of  God's 
nature  and  will.  None  of  the  patriarchs  is  ethically  as  per- 
fect as  Joseph,  for  he  is  the  last  in  the  upward  scale  of  the 
development,  preceding  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  (d)  With- 
out this  introduction,  this  knowledge  of  preceding  devel- 
opment, the  doings  and  writings  of  Moses  would  appear  an 
unintelligible  mystery,  inexplicable  and  incomprehensible, 
a  state  of  culture  and  a  stage  of  reason  and  ethics  issuing 
suddenly  from  dead  rocks,  and  Moses  would  appear  like  a 
wizard  wrapped  in  the  deceptive  mantel  of  darkness,  (e)  In 
all  his  writings  Moses  continually  points  back  to  the  events, 
doctrines  and  promises  recorded  in  Genesis.  It  might  be 
maintained  that  somebody  prior  to  Moses  wrote  the  Book 
of  Genesis.  This,  however,  is  refuted  by  the  constant  use  of 
the  tetragrammaton  in  the  book,  which,  according  to  docu- 
mentary evidence,  is  of  Mosaic  origin  (Exodus  iii.  and  vi. 
2-9).  The  portions  of  Genesis  in  which  God  is  called  Elo- 
him  or  El  Shaddi  are  ancient  documents,  which  its  author 
accepted  and  incorporated  literally,  but  on  no  occasion  omits 
to  state  that  Elohim  or  El  Shaddi  is  identical  with  his 
Jehovah,  and  does  not  signify  any  other  Deity.  Genesis,  like 
the  whole  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  except  some  psalms  between 
Psalms  xlii.  and  Ixxxiii.,  which  are  Elohistic,  is  entirely 
Jehovistic,  only  the  ancient  documents  are  not ;  hence  Gene- 
sis could  not  have  been  written  prior  to  Moses.*  Again 
Genesis  contains  a  number  of  indications  that  it  was  written 
outside  of  Palestine,  by  one  who  knew  most  about  Egypt, 
and  for  readers  best  acquainted  with  this  country.  Genesis 
xxiii.  the  author  finds  it  necessary  to  explain  Kirjath  Arba. 
"  This  is  Hebron  in  the  land  of  Canaan,"  which  he  repeats 
in  verse  19  of  the  same  chapter,  and  again  in  chapter  xxxv. 
verse  27,  which  only  an  author  outside  of  Canaan  could  have 
written.     This  is  also  the  case  in  Numbers  xiii.  22,  where 


*This,  of  course,  is  to  maintain  that  the  various  h5-pothe8e8  of 
fragments  from  different  authors,  distinguished  by  different  names 
of  the  Deity  employed  by  them,  called  Jahvistic  and  Elohistic 
■writers,  is,  aside  of  the  Elohistic  portions  mentioned  above,  entirely 
false.    The  Elohistic  Psalms  will  be  noticed  under  Psalms. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  33 

Hebron  is  again  referred  to  as  having  been  built  seven  years 
prior  to  Zoan  of  Egypt.  The  land  between  the  Euphrates 
and  the  Isthmus  of  Suez  is  called  in  Genesis  the  land  of  the 
Eberites,  or  Hebrews.  Abraham  is  called  the  Ibri  (xiv.  13). 
Joseph  is  called  an  Ibri  man  (xxxix.  14) ;  tells  of  himself 
that  he  was  stolen  from  the  land  of  the  Ibrim  (xl.  15),  and 
is  called  by  the  royal  courtier  an  Ibri  slave  (xli.  12).  So  the 
Ibrim  are  constantly  mentioned  as  being  called  so  by  the 
Egyptians.  This  was  certainly  not  written  in  Canaan,  nor 
was  it  written  east  thereof,  where  the  people  west  of  the 
Euphrates  were  called  "  Western "  Arabi,  Arabs.  The 
Egyptians  naturally  changed  the  "  Western  "  Arabi,  Arbi,  or 
Erebi  into  Ebri  or  Ibri,  the  people  or  land  "  on  the  other 
side  "  of  the  Isthmus.  The  term  Ibri,  or  Hebrew,  can  be  of 
EgyptifTn  origin  only.  The  author  of  Genesis  never  explains 
the  names  or  offices  of  Egyptian  persons,  although  they 
have  no  equivalents  among  the  Hebrews,  as  Pharaoh,  Poti- 
phar,  the  Sar  Hat-Tabachim,  Sar  Ha-Ophim,  Sar  Ha-Mash- 
kim,  and  the  location  or  history  of  Egyptian  places,  as  he 
often  very  carefully  does  with  names  of  places  and  persons 
outside  of  Egypt ;  evidently  because  he  wrote  for  a  people 
well  acquainted  with  Egypt  and  Egyptian  affairs.  This  is 
evident  from  the  entire  history  of  Joseph  and  partly  also 
from  the  history  of  Abraham.  These  are  points  of  circum- 
stantial evidence  proving  that  Moses,  after  the  exode  and  in 
the  wilderness,  must  have  written  the  book  of  Genesis.  If 
there  occur  in  it  passages  which  seem  to  be  of  a  later  origin 
than  the  time  of  Moses,  they  must  be  accounted  for  from 
another  standpoint  than  the  Jahvistic,  Elohistic  fragment 
hypothesis  or  any  other  theory  which  places  not  the  author- 
ship of  this  book  at  any  time  after  the  death  of  Moses. 

7.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant  and  perhaps  also  all  the 
other  Mosaic  documents,  called  ntH  n^nHil  "13D  '  Deuter. 
xxxi.  26)  and  not  ilNTil  Ulinn  (ibid,  verse  12),  as  Deuter- 
onomy is  called,  was  delivered  to  the  Levites  to  be  placed  at 
the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord,  as  part  of  mi^ 
"  The  testimony  "  upon  which  the  whole  of  Deuteronomy  is 
based,  and  to  which  it  constantly  refers,  and  not  in  the 


34  The  First  Canon. 

hands  of  all  the  Levites  and  Elders ;  hence  it  could  be 
known  and  examined  by  the  expounders  of  the  law  and  the 
priests,  but  not  also  by  the  whole  people  (Deut.  xxxi.  24-26). 
It  is  quite  natural,  therefore,  that  the  earliest  prophets 
whose  books  we  possess,  like  Joel,  Amos  and  Hosea,  arguing 
against  the  corruption  of  religion  and  law  in  the  kingdom 
of  Israel,  spoke  and  wrote  in  the  style  of  Deuteronomy,  and 
referred  to  it  most  frequently ;  it  was  the  canon  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  known  as  such  to  everybody,  while  the  other  por- 
tions of  the  first  canon — perhaps  Genesis  excepted — could 
not  have  been  known  so  popularly.* 

8.  Documentary  evidence  not  merely  entitles  but  compels 
us  to  maintain  that  all  these  manuscript  scrolls,  preserved 
and  zealously  guarded  in  the  national  sanctuary,  may  have 
been  connected  with  the  Mosaic  books  of  Genesis,  Covenant, 
Leviticus  and  Deuteronomy,  and  shaped  in  the  present  form 
of  the  Five  Books  of  Moses,  if  not  Moses  himself  performed 
this  task  in  the  last  days  of  his  life ;  and  that  material 
which,  after  Moses,  Avas  added  to  any  of  those  books  or 
scrolls  was  incorporated  in  the  later  books  of  Joshua  and 
Judges,  although  some  of  it  may  have  been  retained  in  the 


*It  seems  that  mn^  N"ip,  in  Isaiah  i.  13,  does  not  refer  to  H'^^D 
SS'IV?  in  the  Thorah,  because  in  the  next  verse  Isaiah  calls  the  holy- 
days  DD'iyiD,  and  so  or  Q';n  the  prophets  usually  call  the  feasts  or- 
dained in  the  Thorah ;  none  refer  to  them  as  Nipo  Nip.  Nor  is  thi» 
phrase  in  this  sense  found  anywhere  in  the  New  Hebrew.  It  appears 
that  it  must  be  understood  literally  "  Reading  Scripture  ;  "  in  this 
sense  only  the  term  N"ip:3  went  down  into  the  New  Hebrew.  Isaiah 
referred  to  the  then  already  prevailing  custom  of  reading  canonical 
Scripture  as  part  of  the  divine  service  of  Sabbath  and  New  Moon. 
That  he  had  in  this  chapter  the  last  song  of  Moses  before  his  eyes 
is  evident  from  lyD'^  and  iJ'TXn  in  verses  2  and  10,  and  in  the  pre- 
vious chapter  (Deut.  xxxi.  11)  he  saw  the  commandment  of  "  To  read 
this  law,"  which  according  to  verse  9,  refers  to  DeuteronomJ^  This 
is  also  evident  from  Isaiah  Ixvi.,  which  is  chiefly  an  imitation  of 
Isaiah  i. ;  and  there,  verse  21,  occurs  the  phrase  DmSi  D'JH^n,  which 
is  taken  from  Deuteronomy.  It  appears,  therefore,  that  Deuter- 
onomy chiefly  was  read  as  part  of  the  devotional  exercises  on  Sab- 
bath and  New  Moon. 


PiiONAOs  TO  Holy  Wkit.  35 

Pentateuch,  as  for  instance  Genesis  xiv.  14,  xxxvi.  31 ;  *  Exo- 
dus xvi.  35,  36 ;  Leviticus  xxi. ;  Numbers  xiii.  24,  xxi.  3,  25, 
xxxii.  34-42  ;  Deuteronomy  xxxiv.  Unless  it  be  maintained 
that  such  anachronistic  passages  came  in  the  Thorah  as 
marginal  notes  first,  which  transcribers  erroneously  incorpo- 
rated into  the  text,  for  which  we  possess  no  proof  whatever. 
This  must  have  been  done  at  an  early  date  of  Israel's  his- 
tory, long  before  the  first  books  of  the  Prophetical  Canon 
were  recognized  as  holy  Scriptures.  Still,  whenever  this  was 
done,  there  exists  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  compilers  of 
the  Mosaic  Canon  accepted  anything  into  it  which  they  did 
not  verily  believe  to  have  come  from  the  hands  of  Moses  or 
his  immediate  disciples.  We  have  no  right  to  suspect  fraud 
or  imposition  where  the  object  of  any  book  is  the  highest 
good  of  mankind,  which  is  the  case  with  the  Pentateuch, 
unless  forced  to  do  so  by  the  undoubted  dicta  of  reason.  It 
is  a  self-contradictory  assumption,  that  any  man  or  any 
body  of  men  whose  sole  object  is  truth  and  righteousness 
should  resort  to  fraudulent  means  to  reach  his  or  their  aim. 
The  so-called  pious  fraud  is  not  applicable  to  such  stern 
preachers  of  righteousness  as  Israel's  prophets  were.  In 
order,  however,  to  approach  argumentatively  the  time  when 
the  Pentateuch  received  its  present  form,  we  must  first  ascer- 
tain when  the  books  of  the  Prophetical  Canon  were  written, 
and  when  they  were  considered  Holy  Writ.  This  is  attempted 
in  the  next  chapter. 

*Itis  possible  enough  that  this  passage  was  written  by.  Moses, 
and  the  eight  kings  of  Edom,  all  foreigners — ^noEdomites  reigned  in 
the  land  of  Edom  before  the  sons  of  Esau — assumed  the  reins  of 
government  in  that  country  and  before  the  Israelites  had  an  organ- 
ized government,  i.  e.,  in  the  time  of  Moses.  The  Melech  in  this 
passage,  as  in  Deuteronomy  xxxiii.  15,  refers  to  Moses  (Sepurno). 


CHAPTER    III. 

THE    FORMER   PROPHETS. 

THE  eight  books  of  the  Prophetical  Canon,  viz. :  Joshua, 
Judges,  Samuel,  Kings,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel  and 
Minor  Prophets,  were  esteemed  among  the  ancient  Israelites 
of  equal  holiness,  inferior  only  to  the  Thorah,  at  as  early 
a  date,  indeed,  as  the  reading  of  holy  Scriptures  besides 
the  Thorah,  as  part  of  the  divine  service,  was  introduced  in 
the  synagogues  and  academies.  According  to  most  ancient 
regulations  prescribed  sections  from  any  of  these  books 
were  read  in  conclusion  of  the  morning  service  of  every 
Sabbath,  biblical  holy  day,  the  ninth  day  of  the  month  of 
Ab,  and  in  conclusion  of  the  afternoon  service  of  any  public 
day  of  fast.  Passages  from  the  Prophetical  Canon  only  and 
not  also  from  Hagiography  were  prescribed  to  this  end. 
But  it  made  no  difference  from  which  of  the  eight  propheti- 
cal books  such  selections  were  made,  which  certainly  shows 
that  they  were  esteemed  of  equal  holiness.  And  yet  the 
four  books  called  the  Former  Prophets,  because  they  are 
called  so  must  have  been  esteemed  Holy  Writ  prior  to  the 
four  called  Latter  Prophets.  This  point  deserves  particular 
attentiqn,  especially  as  radical  criticisms,  in  order  to  bring 
down  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch  to  a  comparatively  recent 
date,  entirely  misconstrue  these  historical  books. 

2.  Outside  of  the  Bible  we  possess  but  one  document  on 
the  dates,  when,  and  the  authors  by  whom  the  various  books 
of  the  Bible  were  written,  and  this  is  the  record  of  ancient 
tradition  in  the  Talmud,  Baha  Bathra,  146  and  15a,  which, 
literally  rendered,  reads  thus  : 

"Moses  wrote  his  own  book,  the  section  of  Balaam,  and  the 
Book  of  Job.  The  latter  is  contradicted  by  various  teachers, 
and  finally  by  the  principal  Massorites  of  Tiberias,  Rabbis 
Jochanan  and  Eleazar,  who  maintain  HTf  n'?"lJ!  *'?"1^D  DVK 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  37 

"  Job  was  among  those  who  returned  from  the  Babylonian 
captivity,"  as  appears  also  from  Job  xlii.  10,  and  from  its 
position  in  the  third  Canon. 

"  Joshua  Avrote  his  own  book  and  the  last  eight  verses  in 
the  Thorah."  This  is  amended  on  the  next  page  in  the  Tal- 
mud to  the  effect  that  the  last  verses  of  Joshua  were  written 
partly  by  Eleazar  and  partly  by  Phineas,  the  high  priests. 

"  Samuel  wrote  his  own  book,  also  Judges  and  Ruth;" 
which  is  amended  on  the  next  page  of  the  Talmud  to  the 
effect  that  the  Prophets  Nathan  and  Gad  wrote  parts  of  the 
book  Samuel,  as  stated  expressly  in  1  Chronicles  xxix.  29. 

"  David  wrote  a  book  of  Psalms,  in  which  he  incorporated 
the  psalms  of  ten  older  authors. 

"Jeremiah  wrote  his  own  book.  Kings  and  Lamenta- 
tions. 

"  Hezekiah,  the  king,  and  his  associates  wrote  Isaiah, 
Proverbs  (see  Proverbs  xxv.  1),  Song  of  Solomon  and  Ec- 
clesiastes. 

"■  The  Men  of  the  Great  Synod  wrote  Ezekiel,  Twelve  Minor 
Prophets,  Daniel  and  Esther." 

"  Ezra  wrote  his  own  book  (including  Nehemiah)  and  the 
genealogies  of  Chronicles  up  to  himself  D^O^H  HD"!  ^^  DH* 
i?  ny"  (see  Rashi). 

It  must  be  understood  that  DHD  or  "H^ilD,  "  he  wrote  or 
they  wrote,"  in  this  or  other  Talmudical  passages,  does  not 
always  refer  to  authorship ;  it  refers,  also,  to  the  editorship, 
the  parties  that  collected  and  compiled  the  manuscripts  of 
any  author. 

3.  It  is  evident  from  the  books  of  "  Wars  of  Jehovah," 
"Sojourns,"  "Genealogies,"  and  "Jashar  or  Moshelim," 
that  official  and  cotemporary  chronography  was  one  of  the 
public  institutions  in  Israel.  This  appears  also  from  Joshua 
and  Samuel,  of  whom  it  is  reported  that  they  wrote  into 
such  existing  books,  and  from  the  above  Talmudical  tradi- 
tion, which  admits  that  Joshua  Avrote  into  the  Thorah  (see 
also  Ramhan's  commentary  to  Numbers  xxi.  1),  and  that 
the  two  high  priests  added  to  the  records  of  Joshua.  No 
such  official  records  are  mentioned  in  the  period  of  the 
Judges,  although  frequent  references  to  them  occur  in  the 


38  The  Former  Prophets. 

Book  of  Judges  (v.  4,  5;  vi.  7-10;  xi.  14-27).  Still,  in  that 
very  ancient  song  of  Deborah  (chapter  v.),  a  host  of  en- 
gravers of  the  law  on  stone  or  metal,  OpplHtD,  presiding 

judges,  jnO  b)!  DOS^V,  and  expert  scribes,  02C^3  DOS^IO 
")£31D,  are  expressly  mentioned,*  so  that  cotemporary  chro- 
nography  also  in  that  period  can  hardly  be  doubted,  espe- 
cially as  the  variety  of  styles  in  the  different  accounts  in  the 
book  point  distinctly  to  various  larger  chronicles  from  which 
the  narratives  were  epitomized. 

From  and  after  King  David  the  Scribe  {^£31D)  and  Chro- 
nographer  (^T'^tD)  or  Chancellor  were  members  of  the 
royal  council.  Solomon  had  even  two  scribes  (1  Kings  iv. 
3),  and  that  official  is  there  yet  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah 
(xxxvi.  9,  12  ;  lii.  25),  to  the  very  en(;l  of  the  two  kingdoms. 
Both  the  chronicles,  and  in  many  instances  also  the  chro- 
nographers  are  mentioned.  In  the  Book  of  Kings  only  three 
such  official  and  cotemporary  chronicles  are  referred  to,  to 
the  very  end  of  the  book,  viz. :  "  The  Book  of  the  Words  of 
Solomon  "  (1  Kings  xi.  41)  ;  "  The  Book  of  the  Chronicles  of 
the  Kings  of  Israel"  (ibid.  xiv.  15;  xv.  31),  and  "The  Book 
of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Judah  "  (ibid.  1  xiv.  18). 

In  Chronicles  the  two  latter  sources  are  referred  to  (1 
Chronicles  ix.  1  and  2  Chronicles  xxxvi.  8),  that  is  up  to 
King  Joiakim,  exactly  as  the  author  of  Kings  does,  to  which 
he  also  refers  in  the  terms  "  The  Book  of  the  Kings  of  Judah 
and  Israel"  (2  Chronicles  xvi.  11),  also  in  the  terms  "l^D 
W'dli2'n  and  calls  it  (xxvi.  27)  "A  Midrash  of  the  Book  of 
Kings."  f  Besides  which  the  author  of  Chronicles  refers  to 
the  books  of  prophets  who  wrote  the  cotemporary  history 
of  certain  kings.  He  mentions  Samuel,  Nathan  and  Gad  as 
writers  of  the  history  of  David  (1  Chronicles  xxix.  29) ; 
Nathan,  Abiah  Hashiloni  and  Eddi  having  written  the  his- 
tory of  Solomon,   (2  Chronicles   xi.  29) ;    Shemaiah  and 

*Also  1  Chronicles  ii.  55.     py>  "'aKn'  DnDID  nnsC'Cn 
t  It  is  evident  that  Midrash  refers  to  the  synopsis  and  not  to  the 
primary  sources,  in  this  case  to  our  Book  of  Kings,  as  in  the  place 
referred  to  and  beginning  of  next  chapter,  the  author  of  Chronicles 
copies  literally  from  2  Kings  xii.  20  and  xiv.  1-7. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  39 

Eddo — the  latter  perhaps  identical  with  Eddi — having  writ- 
ten the  history  of  Rehabeam  (ibid.  xii.  15) ;  the  same  Eddo 
wrote  also  the  history  of  Abiah,  the  son  and  successor  of 
Rehabeam,  in  a  separate  book  called  "  Midrash  Eddo." 
The  history  of  the  other  kings  was  not  preserved  in  separate 
bo,oks  known  to  the  author  of  Chronicles ;  it  was  recorded 
in  the  official  chronicles  by  cotemporary  prophets,  as  special 
mention  is  made  of  Jehu,  son  of  Hanani,  who  inscribed  from 
his  own  book  the  history  of  King  Jchoshaphat  in  the  offi- 
cial chronicle  (2  Chronicles  xx.  34),  and  the  prophet  Isaiah 
wrote  the  history  of  Uziah  in  the  same  manner  (2  Chronicles 
xxvi.  22),  and  the  history  of  Hezekiah,  in  the  Book  of  Isaiah, 
then  called  pt^N*  p  )h^V'^^  pm  according  to  the  four 
words  at  the  head  of  this  book,  and  also  in  the  official 
chronicle  (ibid,  xxxii.  32).  The  history  of  King  Menasseh 
was  written  by  various  prophets,  one  of  whom,  called  Hozai, 
is  mentioned  in  Chronicles  xxxiii.  19.  All  these  historical 
sources  must  have  been  extant  to  the  end  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury B.  C,  as  the  author  of  Chronicles  makes  copious 
abstracts  from  them,  including  many  names  and  sayings  of 
prophets  and  other  prominent  persons  not  mentioned  in  the 
preceding  historical  books,  as  for  instance  in  the  genealogies 
up  to  chapter  ix.  and  the  various  historical  notes  connected 
with  them,  all  of  which  he  states  (ix.  1)  "  are  written  in  the 
Book  of  Kings  of  Israel  and  Judah."  So  the  same  author 
continually  refers  to  books  from  which  he  copies,  and  not  to 
mere  traditions  or  opinions.  The  institution  of  cotemporary 
official  chronography,  it  appears  from  the  closing  passage 
of  1  Maccabees,  was  permanent  in  Israel,  and  was  there  yet 
in  the  time  of  John  Hyrcan,  whose  official  day  book  is  men- 
tioned there. 

4.  The  historical  books  of  the  Bible  are  synopses  from 
official  and  cotemporary  records  in  some  instances,  or  a 
connection  of  some  books  into  one  —  as  is  the  case  with 
Joshua  and  Samuel — from  cotemporary  writers.  They  were 
not  re-written  or  corrected  by  any  one  man  or  any  set  of 
men  at  any  time.  Aside  of  some  errors  which  might  have 
crept  in  by  copyists  during  thousands  of  years,  they  are  be- 


40  The  Former  Prophets. 

fore  113  to-day  exactly  and  literally  as  they  came  from  the 
hands  of  their  respective  authors,  and  furnish  us  with  the 
consecutive  history  of  the  Israelites  from  1450  to  585  B.  C, 
as  complete  and  truthful  as  no  other  people  of  that  millen- 
ium  has  left  a  record.  Each  book  continues  the  history 
from  the  end  of  the  former,  and  each  author  evinces  a  full 
knowledge  of  his  iDredecessors.  All  of  them  have  in  common 
the  aim  and  object  which  is  not  only  to  write  history,  but  to 
produce  the  historical  evidence  in  support  of  the  fact,  that 
Israel's  life,  prosperity  and  success  depended  on  its  adhe- 
rence to  the  divine  covenant  and  obedience  to  its  laws  and 
teachings,  and  all  national  miseries  and  failures  down  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  Babylonian  exile  resulted 
from  disobedience,  desertion  and  rebellion.  Therefore  they 
are  both  popular  text-books  of  history  and  divine  canons. 
Each  of  these  books  is  different  from  the  others  in  diction, 
plan  and  terminology,  consequently  no  one  person  could 
have  been  the  author  of  any  two  of  them.  Each  has  its 
own  exceptions  from  the  rules  of  grammar  and  peculiarities 
of  construction ;  hence  none  was  re-written  by  critics  or 
literary  editors,  none  went  through  the  hands  of  a  corrector. 
These  books  are  before  us  in  their  antique  originality.  Had 
they  been  revised  at  any  time  they  would  be  uniform,  correct 
and  smooth.  Had  they  been  written  or  re-written  at  any 
time  by  any  one  man  or  any  one  body  of  men,  they  could 
not  differ  so  entirely  in  plan  as  Judges  does  from  Joshua 
and  Kings  from  Samuel,  which  are  as  different  as  is  the 
synoptic  from  chronographer. 

5.  Joshua  contains  three  different  elements  from  three 
different  records :  (a)  The  original  records  of  Joshua, 
added  by  him  to  the  various  public  records  established  by 
Moses;  (b)  the  geographical  and  topographical  records 
referring  to  the  conquest  and  division  of  the  land  (Joshua 
xii.-xxi.),  which  could  not  have  been  written  at  any  later 
date,  as  the  whole  claim  of  the  families  to  certain  lands 
always  depended  on  it ;  and  (c)  the  Book  Jashar  quoted  in 
Joshua  X.  12-14  as  the  source  for  the  miracle  of  sun  and 
moon  standing  still.     The  book  as  now  before  us  was  cer- 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  41 

tainly  not  compiled  or  edited  by  Joshua,  nor  was  the  author 
of  the  Joshua  records  different  from  him  who  wrote  the  last 
chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  as  a  cursory  inspection  of  this  and 
Joshua  i.  sufficiently  proves. 

It  is  certain  that  Joshua  is  older  than  Judges,  which  is 
chronologically  a  continuation  of  the  former.  The  last  words 
of  Joshua  are  quoted  in  Judges  (ii.  6-9),  and  the  beginning 
of  this  chapter  is  in  substance  from  Joshua  xxiii.,  as  the 
notice  from  Caleb  taking  Hebron  (Judges  i.  10-15)  is  from 
Joshua  xiv.,  xv.  13-19. 

6.  The  Book  of  Joshua  is  before  us  in  twenty-four  chap- 
ters (modern  division),  fourteen  Sedarim  (ancient  division), 
656  verses,  the  middle  of  which  is  xiii.  26.    Its  contents  are  : 

Chapter  i.     God's  charges  to  Joshua  and  to  his  people. 

Chapter  ii.  Sending  and  returning  of  the  spies  from  Jeri- 
cho.    The  story  of  Rahab. 

Chapters  iii.  and  iv.  Marching  from  the  camp  east  of  the 
Jordan,  crossing  that  river,  and  erecting  the  twelve  stones 
taken  from  its  bottom  at  the  west  side  thereof. 

Chapter  v.  Circumcision  and  the  Passover  at  Gilgal,  and 
the  vision  of  Joshua. 

Chapter  vi.     Capture  of  Jericho. 

Chapter  vii.  Reverse  before  the  City  of  Ai ;  crime  and 
punishment  of  Achan. 

Chapter  viii.  Capture  of  Ai,  erection  of  the  altar,  writing 
the  law  upon  the  stones,  and  pronouncing  the  blessings  and 
the  curses  on  Mounts  Gerizim  and  Ebal. 

Chapter  ix.     The  Gibeonites  and  the  covenant  with  them. 

Chapter  x.  War  and  victory  over  Adoni  Zedek  and  four 
other  kings  ;  sun  and  moon  standing  still. 

Chapter  xi.  Jabin,  King  of  Hazar,  and  other  kings  de- 
feated in  battle  and  slain. 

Chapter  xii.     Renumeration  of  Joshua's  victories. 

Chapter  xiii.  to  xxi.  Division  of  the  land  among  the 
tribes,  and  appointing  cities  of  refuge. 

Chapter  xxii.  The  two  and  a  half  tribes  dismissed  to 
their  homes  beyond  Jordan,  the  altar  they  erected,  and  the 
controversy  to  which  it  led. 


42  The  Former  Prophets. 

Chapters  xxiii.  and  xxiv.  Public  meetings,  addresses  of 
Joshua,  reaffirmation  of  the  covenant,  death  and  burial  of 
Joshua  and  Eleazar  the  high  j)riest. 

According  to  tradition,  the  wars  of  Joshua  lasted  seven 
years,  the  division  of  the  land  and  taking  possession  thereof, 
also  took  seven  vears.  Then  the  Mosaic  law  was  put  in 
force  and  the  tabernacle  erected  in  Shiloh. 

Diction  and  phraseology  of  this  book  are  similar  to  that 
of  Moses,  although  less  nervous.  It  is  without  documentary 
evidence  to  speak  of  a  Hexateuch  instead  of  a  Pentateuch ; 
and  linguistically,  there  is  no  more  similarity  between 
Joshua  and  Pentateuch  than  what  is  ordinarily  the  case  in 
the  writings  of  a  weaker  disciple  comparing  to  those  of  his 
original  and  more  powerful  master. 

In  order  to  approximate  the  time  Avhen  the  Book  of  Joshua 
was  written,  we  must  ascertain  first  when  Judges  was  writ- 
ten. Therefore,  we  turn  now  to  the  second  book  of  the 
prophetical  canon. 

7.  The  Book  of  Judges  is  before  us  in  twenty-one  chap- 
ters (modern  division),  fourteen  Sedarim  (ancient division), 
618  verses,  half  of  which  is  x.  8.  Its  contents  are :  After 
the  introduction  (see  above),  the  book  begins  iii.  7,  with  the 
exploits  of  Othniel  ben  Kenaz  and  his  successors,  Ehud  ben 
Gera  and  Shamgar  ben  Anoth,  the  three  judges  following 
Joshua. 

Chapter  iv.     Contains  the  story  of  Deborah  and  Barak. 

Chapter  v.     The  song  of-Deborah. 

Chapter  vi.  to  viii.     Is  the  record  of  the  Gideon  period. 

Chapter  ix.  Contains  the  story  of  the  usurper,  Abime- 
lech,  and  the  parable  of  Jotham. 

Chapter  x.  Opens  with  a  mere  mention  of  two  succeeding 
Judges,  Thola  and  Jair,  and  closes  with  reports  of  prevailing 
corruption  and  invasion,  leading  to  the  appointment  of  Jeph- 
thah. 

Chapters  xi.  and  xii.  Is  the  record  of  Jephthah,  with  the 
story  of  his  daughter,  closing  chapter  xii.  with  a  mere  men- 
tion of  the  three  succeeding  Judges,  Abzon  (said  to  be  the 
Boaz  in  Ruth),  Ailon  and  Abdon. 

Chapter  xiii.  to  xviii.     Is  the  record  of  the  Samson  period. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  AVrit.  43 

From  chapter  xvii.  to  the  end  of  the  book  two  stories  are 
appended,  to  which  there  is  no  reference  made  in  the  body  of 
the  book,  although  they  -narrate  incidents  which  are  sup- 
posed to  have  occurred  at  tlie  very  beginning  of  that  period, 
when  Phineas  was  high  priest,  and  differ  radically  in  spirit, 
phraseology,  tone  and  object  from  the  body  of  the  book. 
No  reader  can  help  seeing  that  these  two  appendices  are 
later  productions,  and  were  added  for  a  purpose  to  the  Book 
of  Judges. 

The  author  of  Judges  mentions  neither  Eli  nor  Samuel, 
although  they  were  the  very  men  he  must  have  glorified, 
according  to  the  plan  of  his  book,  if  there  existed  no  par- 
ticular reason  for  ignoring  them. 

8.     The  author  of  Judges  is  an  outspoken  monotheistic, 
theocratic  patriot.     He  evidently  transcribed  his  narratives 
from  the  Book  of  Wars  of  Jehovah,  where  cotemporaries  of 
the  respective  events  recorded  them.     Therefore  ho  has  no 
records  from  the  long  intervals  of  peace  and  evident  pros- 
perity.    He  claims  that  all  national  misfortunes  and  miser- 
ies were  divine  retributions  for  Israel's  abandonment  of  the 
true  God  and  adopting  pagan   cults ;    and  that   salvation 
from  misery  was  always  effected  by  Judges  who  were  faith- 
ful to  God  and  succeeded  in  reforming  the  people ;  and  this 
is  the  tendency  and  purpose  of  the  entire  book.     He  is  the 
stern  theocratic  democrat.    He  dwells  with  special  delight  on 
Deborah  on  account  of  her  brilliant  genius  and  God-inspired 
patriotism.     Gideon,  Jephthah  and  Samson,  heroic  men  of 
the   people,  true   to   Israel's  cause,  are  his  central  figures, 
while  he  barely  mentions  the  names  of  most  of  the  Judges, 
and  has  more  to  say  of  the  filial  devotion  of  Jephthah's 
daughter  than  of  the  judges  governing  forty-five  years  prior 
to  Jephthah.     He  literally  pours  out  his  abhorrence  of  the 
monarchical,   anti-theocratic   institution  in   narrating   the 
story  of  the  first  usurper,  Abimelech,  the  son  of  Gideon,  and 
a  concubine,  who  is  the  first  fratricide  after  Cain,  in  sacred 
history,  much  more  criminal  than  Adam's  first-born.     His 
supporters  and  partisans  are  paganized  rebels.     The  treas- 
ures in  support  of  his  cause  are  taken  from  the  temple  of 
Baal.     He  is  the  first  bloodthirsty  despot  in  Israel's  history ; 


44  The  Former  Prophets. 

within  three  years  of  his  reign  he  slays  thousands  of  his 
followers,  to  be  himself  slain  at  last  at  the  hands  of  a  woman. 
None  of  the  reigning  judges  is.  blamed  by  the  author. 
Throughout  the  book  the  theocratic  democrat,  the  invincible 
man  of  righteousness,  speaks  the  blunt  and  stern  language 
of  a  heroic  age. 

9.  Entirely  different  are  the  language  and  tendency  of  the 
two  appendices,  evidently  written  by  another  author.  He  is 
no  synoptic.  He  writes  extensive  stories  containing  many 
particulars  of  single  events.  He  evinces  his  animosity  to 
the  democratic  form  of  government  by  saying  four  times  : 
"  In  those  days  there  was  no  king  in  Israel,"  to  which  he 
adds  twice  :  "  Every  man  did  what  seemed  right  in  his  sight," 
which  is  to  say,  then  confusion  and  anarchy  reigned.  With 
undisturbed  equanimity  and  without  a  word  of  blame,  he 
tells  the  story  of  Michah's  idol,  how  the  Danites  stole  it  and 
its  priest  and  worshiped  it  all  the  time  that  the  tabernacle 
was  at  Shiloh.  He  is  evidently  not  the  same  man  who  wrote 
the  main  portion  of  Judges. 

The  second  story,  about  the  concubine  slain  at  Gibeah 
and  the  subsequent  murderous  execution  of  justice  on  the 
tribe  of  Benjamin,  fully  betrays  the  intention  of  the  author. 
Besides  his  anti-democratic  sentiments,  which  he  makes  the 
groundwork  of  both  stories,  he  makes  out  a  case  of  what 
happened  in  Gibeah  so  similar  to  that  of  Sodom,  when  the 
angels  had  come  to  Lot,  that  the  story  borrows  both  the  inci- 
dents and  phrases  from  that  part  of  Genesis  (Judges  xix. 
8-27).  Then  his  evident  intention  is  to  bestow  as  much 
praise  as  the  situation  would  afford  on  Levy,  Judah  and 
Ephraim,  and  as  much  blame  and  disgrace  as  could  be 
afforded  on  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  and  the  men  of  Jabesh 
Gilead  (ibid.  xxi.  5-12).  Their  crime  was  that  of  Sodom, 
their  punishment  and  degradation  were  complete ;  a  mere 
remnant  of  them  was  permitted  to  live  by  the  grace  and 
mercy  of  the  people,  and  even  those  had  to  steal  women  and 
take  them  for  wives.  This  story  has  certainly  not  the  same 
author  who  incorporated  in  his  narratives  the  words  of 
Deborah,  "After  thee,  Benjamin,  among  thy  people  "  (Judges 
V.   14).     Another  remarkable  point  is   that  the   Book   of 


Pkonaos  to  Holy  Writ.  45 


* 


Judges  has  no  mention  whatever  of  any  high  priest  or  Levite, 
while  in  this  appendix  we  meet  again  the  Levite  and  the 
high  priest  Phineas  (xx.  28). 

There  exists  internal  evidence  in  Judges  to  the  effect  that 
the  body  of  the  book  is  older  than  the  appendices.  In  Judges 
i.  20  we  read,  "  And  the  Jebusite  dwelt  with  the  children  of 
Benjamin  in  Jerusalem  n^H  DVH  T^  to  this  very  day," 
which  must  have  been  prior  to  the  reign  of  David.  In  one  of 
the  appendices  (ibid,  xviii.  31)  we  read  that  the  Danites  wor- 
shiped the  idol  of  Michah,  as  long  as  the  house  of  God  was 
in  Shiloh,  as  a  reminiscence  of  days  past,  and  not  DVH  1^ 
r\ir\  consequently  the  second  event  transpired  long  after  the 
first,  and  the  writers  so  dated  it.  Again,  as  the  song  of 
Deborah  bears  testimony  to  the  Sinaic  revelation,  the  tribal 
divisions  and  the  state  of  culture  in  her  days,  and  Jephthah 
in  his  message  to  the  King  of  Ammon  (Judges  xi.  12-28) 
bears  testimony  to  the  events  in  the  last  year  of  Moses,  so 
Samuel  (1  Sam.  xii.  8-11)  and  the  author  of  Psalms  Ixxxiii.* 
confirms  the  stories  narrated  in  Judges.  But  the  stories 
narrated  in  the  two  appendices  are  not  as  much  as  referred 
to  any  more  anywhere  in  the  Bible. 

These  appendices  must  have  been  written  at  a  time  when 
it  was  deemed  necessary  to  denounce  the  democratic  form 
of  government,  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  and  the  city  of  Jabesh 
Gilead,  to  laud  the  monarchical  institution  and  to  compli- 
ment the  tribes  of  Levi,  Judah  and  Ephraim.  This  concur- 
rence of  events  happened  at  no  time  in  Israel  except  during 
the  reign  of  King  David.  Then  the  theocratic  democracy 
was  vet  strong  in  number  and  dissatisfisd,  as  iS'  evident 
from  the  revolutions  under  Absalom  and  Sheba  ben  Bichri ; 
Benjamin  was  David's  enemy ;  Jabesh  Gilead  was  loyal  to 
Saul ;  Levy,  Judah  and  Ephraim  were  David's  strongholds. 
There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  as  to  the  time  when  those 
appendices  were  written,  nor  as  to  the  reason  why  they  were 

*  This  Psalm  could  have  been  written  only  in  the  earlier  time  of 
David's  reign,  as  is  evident  from  the  names  of  the  hostile  nations 
mentioned  therein.  Compare  1  Samuel  viii.  "IIUS  EH  in  verse  9  of 
that  Psalm  refers  to  Aram  Zobah,  which  was  under  Assyrian 
dominion  then,  and  must  have  been  assisted  by  Assyrians. 


46  The  Former  Prophets. 

attached  to  the  Book  of  Judges,  which  is  the  very  glorifica- 
tion of  theocratic  democracy,  credits  Benjamin  with  one  of 
the  earliest  saviors  of  Israel  (Judges  iii.  15),  and  records  the 
words  of  Deborah,  'y?^^};^  P^^Jl  "]nnN 

fO.  It  is  easily  understood  why  the  tradition  makes  Sam- 
uel the  author  of  Judges.  The  book  was  written  for  the  peo- 
ple, to  whom  the  official  chronicles  were  inaccessible,  by  an 
uncompromising  and  zealous  advocate  of  the  theocratic 
democracy,  an  implacable  opponent  of  the  pagan  corrup- 
tions, monarchy  and  the  priesthood,  with  the  avowed  inten- 
tion to  convince  the  masses  of  the  real  cause  of  all  national 
miseries,  and  to  uphold  and  maintain  in  their  original  purity 
the  theocracy  and  the  covenant. 

This  man  could  have  been  Samuel  only  ;  there  is  no  other 
known  in  history.  He  was  the  reformer  of  his  people,  with 
him  idolatry  vanished  out  of  Israel  for  a  century.  He  was 
the  last  pillar  of  theocracy  and  opponent  of  monarchy  to  the 
very  end.  He  was  the  opponent  of  priesthood  and  almost 
overthrew  it,  to  which  he  was  forced  by  the  demoralization 
of  the  sons  of  Eli,  and  the  fact  that  the  first  royalist  rebels 
were  chiefly  Levites,  as  the  city  of  Sichem  belonged  to  the 
Levites  of  the  family  of  Kehath  (Joshua  xxi.  21).  His  hand 
is  visible  throughout  the  book.  The  authority  of  the  pro- 
phet made  the  book  a  popular  oracle.  It  was  canon  as 
soon  as  it  had  reached  the  people  (1  Samuel  iii.  20).  There- 
fore when  royalty  struggled  against  democracy,  as  was  the 
case  in  the  time  of  David,  it  was  necessary  to  neutralize  the 
effect  of  that  book,  which  was  attempted  by  the  addition  of 
that  appendix.* 

The  book  presents  also  an  argument  e  silentio  in  favor  of 
the  authorship  of  the  prophet  Samuel,  being  written  in  the 
lifetime  of  the  high  priesl  Eli.     It  closes  with  the  death  of 


*This  Dan,  the  name  which  the  Danites  gave  to  the  city  of  Laish, 
in  the  northwest  of  Palestine,  in  the  valley  of  Beth  Rahab,  not  far 
from  Zidon  (Judges  xviii.  28),  is  not  identical  with  the  Dan  in  Gene- 
sis xiv.  14  and  Deuteronomy  xxxiv.  1,  which  is  the  name  of  a  moun- 
tain range  in  the  northeast  of  Palestine,  at  the  head  of  Gilead,  near 
Hobah,  west  of  Damascus. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  47 

Samson,  mentions  neither  Eli  nor  Samuel,  with  whom  the 
period  of  the  Judges  closes,  although  the  author  records 
every  name  of  the  Judges  from  Joshua  to  Samson.  Had  the 
book  been  written  or  transcribed  by  a  later  author,  he  must 
certainly  have  closed  it  with  some  account  of  the  two  last 
Judges  in  Israel.  If  Samuel  was  its  author  he  must  have 
written  it  during  the  lifetime  of  Eli,  whose  administration 
being  not  matter  of  history  yet.  The  same  kind  of  argu- 
ment points  to  the  high  priest  Phineas  as  the  compiler  of  the 
Book  of  Joshua  in  its  present  form.  The  book  closes  with 
the  account  of  the  death  and  burial  of  Joshua  and  Eleazar 
the  high  priest,  makes  no  mention  of  Phineas,  although  he 
was  acting  high  priest,  at  least  in  the  latter  days  of  Joshua 
(Joshua  xxii.  13).  Had  the  book  been  written,  re-written 
or  compiled  by  any  later  author,  he  must  certainly  have 
added  some  account  of  the  third  high  priest  in  Israel. 

11.  Joshua  having  undoubtedly  been  written  prior  to 
Judges,  it  was  certainly  compiled  and  finished  in  its  present 
form  in  the  period  between  Joshua  and  Samuel.  Its  diction 
points  to  a  disciple  of  Moses,  and  this  could  well  have  been 
Phineas,  the  high  priest,  of  whom  the  tradition  admits  that 
he  wrote  the  close  of  the  book.  There  is  no  established  rule 
in  the  canon  of  Biblical  criticism  to  set  aside  the  facts  that 
Phineas  was  the  last  editor  of  Joshua,  that  Samuel  wrote 
Judges,  and  an  anonymous  author  in  the  Davidian  time 
wrote- the  appendix  with  the  avowed  intention  of  counteract- 
ing among  the  people  the  democratic  tendencies  of  the  book, 
the  prevailing  sympathies  for  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  and  the 
inhabitants  of  Jabesh  Gilead.* 

All  this,  however,  does  not  prove  that  Joshua  was  not  the 
author  of  the  material  compiled  in  the  book.  The  whole 
record  of  the  conquest  of  Canaan  must  have  been  inscribed 
in  the  national  records,  called  "  The  Book  of  the  Wars  of 
Jehovah"  (see  page  28).  The  last  speeches  of  Joshua  were 
certainly  added  to  the  "  Book  of  the  Covenant "  as  main- 


*  See  tlie  author's  History  of  the  Israelitish  Nation,  Appendix  to 
Period  II.,  "  Literature,"  Albany,  1854. 


48  The  Former  Prophets. 

tained  in  the  book  (xxiv.  26).  The  quotation  from  the  Book 
of  Jashar  is  marked  (x.  12-14).  The  topographic  portion 
was  written  by  tlie  men  appointed  by  Joshua  at  Shiloh 
(xviii.  8,  9)  and  must  have  originally  been  added  to  the 
national  records  in  the  Book  of  "  Sojourns."  All  this  ma- 
terial was  taken  from  the  original  records  and  compiled  into 
the  one  Book  of  Joshua.  Some  notes  and  exjjlanatory 
remarks  of  the  compiler  may  have  been  added,  but  there 
exists  no  evidence  whatever  that  the  original  material  had 
been  changed  or  interpolated,  nor  does  any  rational  ground 
exist  to  suspect  the  compiler's  stern  honesty  and  veracity. 
We  may,  therefore,  fix  the  following  dates  : 

Joshua  was  written  by  him  and  his  scribes,  and  compiled 
in  its  present  form  by  the  high  priest  Phineas  1400  B.  C. 

Judges,  being  an  abstract  and  epitome  from  the  national 
records,  was  written  in  its  present  form  by  the  prophet  Sam- 
uel 1075  B.  C. 

The  appendices  to  the  Book  of  Judges  were  written  — 
author  unknown — 1025  B.  C. 

With  the  authentication  of  these  two  books  we  gain  one 
more  argument,  and  a  very  important  one,  in  favor  of  the 
authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch  and  its  Mosaic  origin.  We 
also  have  an  intimation,  when  the  original  material  was 
placed  in  its  present  form,  viz. :  when  the  post-Mosaic 
material  was  separated  from  the  Mosaic  records ;  hence 
either  in  the  time  of  Phineas  or  of  Samuel.  The  former 
seems  most  likely,  for  the  latter  the  evidence  of  history, 
especially  of  literature,  speaks  most  distinctly,  as  we  shall 
ascertain  later  on. 

12.  Joshua  in  its  first  verse  announces  itself  as  the  con- 
tinuation of  Deuteronomy.  Judges  in  its  first  verse  an- 
nounces itself  as  the  continuation  of  Joshua.  With  Samuel 
begins  a  new  book,  in  style  different  from  Deuteronomy, 
and  in  plan  and  design  different  from  the  synoptic  Judges, 
which  resembles  the  first  sixteen  chapters  of  Samuel  in  the 
one  point,  that  the  same  theocratic-democratic  spirit,  the 
same  opposition  to  king  and  priest,  characterizes  both  of 
them.     This  outspoken  tendency  of  the  two  books  is  suffi- 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  49 

cient  evidence  that  they  were  not  written  in  the  time  of  the 
kings  and  hereditary  high  priests.* 

13.  The  Book  of  Samuel  is  before  us  in  30  and  24  chapters 
(modern  division),  34  Sedarim  (ancient  division),  1,506 
verses,  the  middle  of  which  is  1  Samuel  xxviii.  24.  It  begins 
with  the  narrative  of  the  parents  of  Samuel  comibg  from 
their  home  to  Shiloh  to  sacrifice  there. 

Chapter  ii.  begins  with  the  prayer  of  Hannah  and  the  his- 
tory of  Samuel  at  Shiloh,  in  connection  with  the  high  priest, 
Eli,  and  his  two  sons. 

Chapter  iii.  contains  the  first  prophecy  of  Samuel  and  its 
delivery  to  Eli. 

Chapter  iii.  contains  the  narrative  of  the  war  of  the  Philis- 
tines upon  Israel,  the  defeat  of  the  latter,  capture  of  the  ark, 
death  of  the  two  sons  of  Eli,  and  of  Eli  himself. 

Chapters  v.  and  vi.  describe  the  plagues  which  came  on 
the  Philistines  on  account  of  the  ark,  and  how  they  returned 
it  with  gifts  and  sacrifices,  resulting  in  the  death  of  50,000 
( ?)  of  the  men  of  Beth  Shemesh. 

Chapter  vii.  narrates  how  after  the  ark  had  been  twenty 
years  at  Kiriath  Jearim,  the  people  reformed  ;  Samuel  prays 

*  The  author  of  Samuel  certainly  understood  the  Levitical  laws  of 
Moses  to  the  effect  that  the  priesthood  belonged  to  the  tribe  of  Levi, 
one  of  them  to  be  high  priest  and  he  to  be  assisted  by  his  sons,  as 
is  expressly  stated  in  Deuteronomy  xxxiii.  In  Deuteronomy  occurs 
always  the  phrase,  "The  Priests-Levites,"  as  also  in  Isaiah  Ixvi. 
In  Leviticus  it  is  "  Aaron  and  his  sons,"  and  not  their  descendants, 
to  whom  the  priesthood  is  given.  When  this  dignity  was  conferred 
on  Phineas,  the  grandson  of  Aaron,  it  was  for  special  cause,  as 
narrated  in  Numbers  xxv.  10,  and  not  as  a  birthright.  When,  after 
Phineas,  again  a  high  priest  is  mentioned,  it  is  Eli  and  his  two  sons 
and  no  other  priest,  and  it  is  not  certain  even  that  Eli  was  a  descend- 
ant of  Aaron,  although  the  custom  may  have  in  after  times  become 
law,  that  the  sons  of  Aaron  only  should  be  priests  and  the  high- 
priesthood  be  hereditary  in  one  family,  as  was  the  case  from  and 
after  King  Solomon  to  the  time  of  the  Maccabees.  It  does  not  seem 
to  be  so  ordained  in  the  Levitical  laws  of  Moses,  and  Samuel,  who 
was  a  Levite,  did  perform  priestly  functions  (1  Samuel  vii.  9;  x.  8; 
xi.  15). 


50  The  Former  Prophets. 

for  them  at  Mizpah,  leads  them  in  battle  against  the  Philis- 
tines and  subdues  them,  and  he  becomes  the  judge  of  the 
people. 

Chapter  viii.  The  people  want  a  king ;  Samuel's  opposi- 
tion and  his  warning. 

Chapter  ix.  Beginning  of  Saul's  history,  and 

Chapter  x.  he  is  anointed  King  of  Israel  and  is  accepted 
among  the  sons  of  the  prophets ;  Samuel  writes  the  royal 
constitution  in  one  of  the  national  records. 

Chapter  xi.  Nahash,  the  Ammonite,  invades  Gilead  and 
besieges  the  city  of  Jabesh.  Saul  comes  to  its  assistance, 
defeats  the  besiegers  and  liberates  the  city,  which  causes 
Samuel  to  call  the  people  to  Gilgal  to  renew  the  covenant 
with  royalty,  to  which  strong  opposition  had  been  mani- 
fested. 

Chapter  xii.     Speech  and  miracle  by  Samuel  at  Gilgal. 

Chapters  xiii.  and  xiv.  Valorous  deeds  of  Saul  and  his 
son,  Jonathan,  in  the  war  against  the  Philistines  with  his 
standing  army  of  3,000  men,  during  the  second  year  of  his 
reign.     Mistakes  of  Saul. 

Chapter  xv.  Invasion  and  overthrow  of  Amalek.  Sam- 
uel prophesies  the  mournful  end  of  Saul  and  his  house. 

Chapter  xvi.  Samuel  anoints  secretly  David,  son  of  Jesse, 
King  of  Israel.     David  at  the  court  of  Saul. 

Chapter  xvii.  The  Philistines  again  invade  Palestine. 
Goliath  slain  by  David,  which  ends  the  campaign. 

Chapter  xviii.  David  returns  to  Saul's  court,  marries  the 
king's  daughter  and  becomes  the  intimate  friend  of  the 
king's  son,  Jonathan. 

Chapter  xix.  Saul  attempts  to  slay  David ;  his  wife  saves 
his  life,  and  he  seeks  shelter  with  Samuel  at  Najoth.  Saul 
sends  messengers  there  to  capture  him,  and  David  returns 
to  Jonathan. 

Chapter  xx.  Covenant  of  friendship  between  David  and 
Jonathan. 

Chapter  xxi.  David's  flight  to  Nob,  then  to  Achish,  King 
of  Gath ; 

Chapter  xxii.,  and  is  finally  compelled  to  seek  refuge  in 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  51 

the  cave  of  Adullam,  where  he  becomes  the  chief  of  a  band 
of  voluntary  warriors. 

Chapter  xxiii.  to  xxvii.  Various  exploits  of  David,  and 
his  persecution  by  Saul. 

Chapters  xxviii.  and  xxix.  The  ends  of  Saul  and  Jonathan 
in  another  war  with  the  Philistines,  and  last  exploits  of 
David  at  Ziklag. 

Second  Samuel  begins  with  the  end  of  Saul  and  Jonathan, 
account  thereof  being  brought  to  David ;  David's  elegy, 
Kesheth. 

Chapter  ii.  to  iv.  Narrates  the  end  of  the  house  of  Saul 
while  David  is  King  of  Judah,  in  which  are  prominent  Ish 
Bosheth,  son  of  Saul,  and  Abner,  his  chief  captain,  and  Joab, 
with  his  brother,  Ashhael,  on  the  side  of  David. 

Chapter  v.  to  xx.  Contains  the  history  of  David  as  King 
of  all  Israel. 

Chapter  xxi.  is  an  appendix  to  this  history. 

Chapter  xxii.  contains  the  great  hymn  of  David. 

Chapters  xxiii.  and  xxiv.  contain  a  collection  of  fragments, 
historical  and  poetical,  appertaining  to  the  history  of  David. 

The  history  of  David,  closing  abruptly  in  chapter  xx.  with 
the  end  of  the  rebellion  under  Sheba,  son  of  Bichri,  is  brought 
to  a  close  in  1  Kings  chapters  i.  and  ii.  and  is  supplemented 
in  the  Book  of  Chronicles. 

14.  There  exists  no  tenable  ground  to  contradict  the  tra- 
dition that  Samuel  wrote  his  book  and  the  Book  of  Judges. 

1  Samuel  xvii.  to  2  Samuel  v.  3  is  from  the  Book  of  Gad, 
different  in  style  and  tone  from  the  genuine  Samuel.  Gad 
followed  David  in  his  early  exploits  (1  Samuel  xxii.  5),  and 
was  undoubtedly  the  historian  of  that  period  in  David's  life. 

2  Samuel  v.  4  to  1  Kings  iii.  28  is  from  the  Book  of  Nathan, 
who  is  named  as  the  chronographer  of  both  David  and 
Solomon  (1  Chronicles  xxix.  29  and  2  Chronicles  ix.  29). 
Gad  is  mentioned  no  more  up  to  2  Samuel  xxiv.  11-22 ;  but 
that  story,  placed  there  among  the  appendices,  certainly  be- 
longs chronologically  to  2  Samuel  vi.,  *  and  Gad  is  always 

*  See  also  1  Chroniclea  xxi.  19. 


52  The  Foemer  Prophets. 

called  Choseh  and  not  Nabi,  the  official  prophet,  which 
Nathan  Avas  after  David  was  anointed  King  of  all  Israel  (2 
Samuel  vii.),  and  he  maintained  himself  also  for  some  time 
under  Solomon.  The  three  narrators,  although  differing 
decidedly  in  style,  diction  and  phraseology — the  Nathan  por- 
tion being  the  most  polished  and  elegant — all  wrote  like 
eye-witnesses  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  most  minute 
details  in  regard  to  persons  and  places  mentioned.  They  have 
in  common  antagonism  to  the  house  of  Saul,  which  proves 
that  they  wrote  before  the  division  of  the  kingdom ;  after 
this  event  there  was  no  further  occasion  for  that  enmity.  The 
last  writer,  the  Prophet  Nathan,  knows  King  Solomon  for 
his  piety  and  wisdom  only  (1  Kings  iii.  3,  5,  28),  knows 
nothing  of  his  idolatry  (1  Kings  xi.  1-13)  and  his  despotism 
(xii.  1-4) ;  nor  does  he  know  anything  of  the  immensity  of 
his  wisdom  (1  Kings  iv.  9-14)  and  his  literary  productions. 
He  evidently  wrote  during  the  earlier  days  of  the  reign  of 
Solomon.  This  is  undoubtedly  the  time  when  the  Book  of 
Samuel,  as  it  is  before  us,  was  compiled.  The  same  Prophet 
Nathan  seems  also  to  be  the  author  of  Psalms  i.,  ii.  and  Ixxii., 
which,  in  connection  with  the  first  chapters  of  Kings  and  2 
Samuel  vii.  12-15,  explain  one  another  well  in  regard  to 
time.* 

15.  Among  the  various  internal  proofs  that  Samuel  wrote 
his  portion  of  the  book  prior  to  the  rise  of  Zion  and  the  tem- 
ple, as  for  instance  the  TMH  DVH  1}^  in  1  Samuel  v.  5,  and 
vi.  15,  there  is  the  frequent  mention  of  Banioth, "  high  places," 
and  the  building  of  altars  to  Jehovah  outside  of  the  national 
sanctuary,  without  any  censure  or  objection,  which  no 
prophetical  writer  after  Samuel  would  have  permitted  to 
pass  uncensured,  as  is  evident  from  the  Book  of  Kings. 
Samuel  builds  an  altar  (1  Samuel  vii.  17)  at  Ramah,  has 
there  his  Bamah  (ix.  12  e.  s.)  while  there  was  another  Bamah 
in  Gilead,  where  the  sons  of  the  prophets  worship  (x.  13), 
and  the  sanctuary  was  in  Nob  (xxi.).  Saul  also  built  an 
altar  to  Jehovah  (xiv.  35)  near  Ayalon,   and  Ahiah,  the 

*  See  our  "  Defense  of  Judaism,"  Psalm  II.,  p.  109. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  53 

grandson  of  Eli,  was  there  with  the  ark  of  the  covenant  and 
did  not  censure  it.  The  Bamah  at  Gibeon,  with  the  Mosaic 
tabernacle  and  altar,  was  there  yet  in  the  time  of  David. 
Zadok  was  chief  priest  there,  Haiman  and  Jeduthum  were 
the  chief  Levites,  although  the  ark  was  in  Zion  (1  Chronicles 
xvi.  37,  also  xxi.  and  xxix.),  and  was  there  yet  in  the  time  of 
Solomon  (1  Kings  iii.  4  e.  s.)  and  was  called  the  great  Bamah. 
No  later  prophetical  writer  (see  1  Kings  iii.  2)  would  have 
allowed  the  building  of  altars  and  Bamoth  to  pass  without 
some  censuring  or  explanatory  notice.  We  stand  here  evi- 
dently upon  historical  ground  in  the  lifetime  of  Samuel. 

16.  The  objections  to  this  theory  are  (1)  from  1  Samuel 
ii.  10  and  35 ;  in  both  cases  it  is  maintained  the  Messiah- 
King  is  mentioned,  which  points  to  a  time  after  Samuel  and 
to  another  author.  In  both  cases,  however,  the  passages 
can  be  taken  out  of  their  respective  places  without  changing 
either  the  sense  or  the  meter,*  and  may  well  have  been 
added  by  Nathan,  for  the  same  reason  as  the  appendix  was 
added  to  Judges,  to  suggest  that  the  theocratic-democratic 
Samuel  prophesied  the  coming  change  from  the  republic  to 
the  monarchy  ;  or  as  verse  10  occurs  in  the  hymn  of  Hannah, 
and  verse  35  in  the  prophecy  of  the  Man  of  God  to  Eli,  and 
not  by  Samuel,  it  may  well  be  that  this  coming  change  was 
indeed  predicted  by  various  intelligent  people,  and  was 
delayed  only  by  the  successful  administration  of  Samuel. 
(2)1  Samuel  ix.  9  may  certainly  have  been  written  by  Sam- 
uel himself : 

"  Beforetime  in  Israel,  when  a  man  went  to  inquire  of  God, 
thus  he  spake.  Come  and  let  us  go  to  the  seer;  for  he  that 
is  now  called  a  prophet  was  beforetime  called  a  seer." 

In  the  same  chapter  Samuel  is  called  "Man  of  God," 
"  Seer "   and  "  Prophet."     It   appears,   therefore,   that  the 


*In  the  poem  of  Hannah  the  words  ID^D^  V^V  p*"l  disturb  the 
meter,  and  10*^)2  may  refer  to  the  high  priest,  who  was  the  anointed 
one.  The  three  words  referring  to  the  king  are  evidently  a  later 
addition.  In  the  message  of  the  Ish  Elohim,  verse  35,  read  *:^^  ?)^n1 
"n"*!?^  "He  (the  Cohen)  shall  walk  before  me  my  Messiah  all  the 
days." 


54  The  Former  Prophets. 

"  Seer"  was  still  in  usage,  in  common  parlance,  while  the 
"  Prophet "  was  no  less  the  official  name  of  the  "  Man  of 
God,"  at  the  time  when  Samuel  wrote,  which  was  also  the 
case  beforetime  ;  and  this  explanation  is  given  to  show  why 
Saul  and  his  companions,  as  also  the  maidens,  met  in  the  city, 
persistently  called  the  prophet  seer,  the  latter  word  being 
yet  in  popular  use,  while  the  term  prophet  was  the  correct 
expression.  The  populace  looked  upon  the  Man  of  God  as 
being  a  seer  or  soothsayer,  while  in  fact  he  was  the  Nabi, 
the  inspired  orator. 

(3)  First  Samuel  xxvii.  7  .'  "And  Achish  gave  him  (David), 
Ziklag ;  therefore  Ziklag  belonged  to  the  Kings  of  Judah 
unto  this  day."  According  to  Joshua  xix.  5,  31,  there  were 
two  Ziklags,  one  belonging  to  Simeon  (1  Chronicles  iv.  80), 
and  one  to  Judah.  The  former  was  captured  by  the  Philis- 
tines and  given  to  David  by  Achish,  and  remained  crown 
domain  to  the  kings  of  Judah,  the  first  of  which  was  David. 
Before  he  was  made  King  of  all  Israel,  it  could  have  well 
been  said,  that  Ziklag  was  crown  domain  of  the  Kings  of 
Judah  to  this  day.  But  if  this  be  taken  as  one  of  the  ex- 
planatory notes,  the  like  of  which  were  added  to  the  histori- 
cal accounts  by  some  later  writer,  being  in  all  cases  explana- 
tory notes  only,  they  can  not  be  taken  as  criteria  of  the  age 
of  the  text  itself.  As  an  instance  of  this  kind  may  be 
quoted  (Joshua  xix.  47),  which  could  not  have  been  written 
in  the  time  of  Joshua,  and  yet  it  occurs  in  the  topographi- 
cal portion  of  Joshua,  the  authenticity  of  which  none  could 
doubt,  especially  as  it  closes  thus  :  "  These  are  the  inherit- 
ances which  Eleazar,  the  priest,  and  Joshua,  the  son  of  Nun, 
and  the  heads  of  the  fathers  of  the  tribes  of  the  children  of 
Israel,  divided  for  an  inheritance  by  lot  in  Sliiloh  before  the 
Lord  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation.  So 
they  made  an  end  of  dividing  the  country."  None  of  these 
explanatory  or  marginal  notes  could  have  been  written  after 
the  fall  of  Samaria  in  720  B.  C,  and  the  one  regarding  Zik- 
lag may  have  been  written  at  any  time  after  the  death  of 
Solomon ;  hence  they  give  no  support  to  radical  criticism 
anyhow. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  55 

17.  The  Book  of  Kings,  as  it  is  now  before  us,  consists  of 
22  and  25  chapters  (modern  division),  35  Sedarim  (ancient 
division),  1,534  verses,  the  middle  of  which  is  1  Kings  xxii,  6. 
The  contents  of  this  book  are  : 

Chapter  i.  to  ii.  11.    The  last  days  and  last  will  of  David. 

Chapter  ii.  12  to  v.  32.  The  earlier  part  of  Solomon's 
reign. 

Chapter  vi.  to  ix.  Building  and  dedication  of  the  Tem- 
ple ;  the  king's  house  and  the  other  buildings  and  cities. 

Chapters  x.  and  xi.    The  latter  part  of  Solomon's  reign. 

Chapter  xii.  Division  of  the  kingdom  in  Judah  and 
Israel ;  Rehabeam  and  Jeroboam. 

Chapter  xiii.  The  prophet  at  Beth  El,  his  mission  and 
death. 

Chapter  xiv.  to  2  Kings  xvii.  6  is  an  abstract  of  synchro- 
nistic history  of  the  two  kingdoms,  their  kings  and  prophets. 

Chapter  xvii.  7  to  41.  A  review  of  the  past.  The  estab- 
lishment of  the  foreign  nations  in  the  country  of  Israel  and 
their  conversion. 

Chapter  xviii.  to  xxv.  An  abstract  of  the  history  of 
Judah,  and  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  with  a  later  addi- 
tion of  four  verses  on  the  liberation  of  King  Jehoiachin  from 
prison. 

18.  Kings  consists  of  four  sections  written  at  different 
times,  viz. :  (1)  The  first  three  chapters  are  from  the  book 
of  the  prophet  Nathan.  (2)  The  history  of  King  Solomon, 
up  to  chapter  xi.,  including  the  building  of  the  Temple,  is 
from  "  Dibrei  Shelomoh  "  (1  Kings  xi.  41),*  which  may  have 
been  written  by  one  of  the  two  prophets  named  in  Chron- 
icles (2  Chronicles  ix.  29).  (3)  From  1  Kings  xi.  to  2  Kings 
xvii.  is  the  work  of  one  synoptic ;  and  (4)  from  chapter 
xviii.  to  the  end  of  the  book  is  the  work  of  another  and 
later  synoptic,  who  also  connected  the  various  sections  into 

*  According  to  the  statement  in  1  Kings  xi.  41 :  "And  the  rest  of 
the  acts  of  Solomon  and  all  that  he  did,  and  his  wisdom — are  they  not 
written  in  the  book  of  the  acts  of  Solomon?  " — the  literary  produc- 
tions of  the  wise  king,  hence  also  his  Proverbs,  at  least  up  to  chap- 
ter XXV.,  must  have  been  contained  in  that  book. 


56  The  Former  Prophets. 

one  book.  There  exists  no  reasonable  objection  to  the  tradi- 
tion, that  this  last  synoptic  and  compiler  was  the  prophet 
Jeremiah.  These  closing  chapters  begin  with  the  lengthy 
account  of  King  Hezekiah,  taken  from  Isaiah  xxxvi.-xxxix., 
after  this  synoptic  had  repeated  (xviii.  9-12)  what  the  former 
synoptic  had  written  already  (xvii.  1-6),  showing  distinctly 
that  a  new  account,  by  a  different  writer,  begins  there,  which 
is  also  apparent  from  the  different  phraseology  of  the  last 
author.  In  his  first  chapter  he  mentions  Moses  three  times, 
viz.,  the  serpent  which  Moses  had  made ;  the  command- 
ments which  God  commanded  Moses ;  according  to  all 
which  Moses  commanded,  the  servant  of  the  Lord  (as  in 
Joshua).  While  the  first  synoptic  mentions  Moses  but 
twice  in  his  entire  book,  and  in  entirely  different  phrases, 
viz. :  "  The  Thorah  of  the  Lord,  the  God  of  Israel "  (2  Kings 
X.  31)  ;  As  written  in  the  Book  of  the  Thorah  of  Moses  (ibid, 
xiv.  6)  as  in  1  Kings  ii.  3.  In  chapter  xxi.  the  style  of  Jere- 
miah is  easily  discernible.  In  the  next  chapters  the  narra- 
tive of  an  eye-witness  is  before  us,  one  who  is  well-informed 
in  his  people's  history  and  literature.  What  he  narrates 
briefly  after  the  death  of  King  Joshiah  he  records  at  length 
in  his  own  book  (Jeremiah  xxxix.  to  xlii.  and  lii.).  The 
same  hand  is  discernible  in  both  books. 

19.  This  last  synoptic,  however,  could  not  possibly  have 
written  the  section  of  the  first,  which  begins  with  the  last 
days  of  Solomon  and  closes  with  the  fall  of  Samaria.  It  is 
not  the  history  of  Judah,  it  is  the  history  of  Israel  and  its 
prophets,  which  was  his  main  object.  He  begins  b}^  placing 
King  Solomon  in  the  very  worst  light  he  could  without  doing 
violence  to  facts.  He  then  justifies  the  secession  of  the  tribes 
from  the  house  of  David  and  betrays  nowhere  any  desire, 
except  in  Elijah's  altar  on  Mt.  Carmel,  of  reuniting  them. 
He  attempts  sub  rosa  to  excuse  the  schism  introduced  by 
Jeroboam  by  condemning  the  Baal  worship  in  much  stronger 
language  than  he  censured  the  worship  introduced  by  Jero- 
boam. While  he  with  special  care  reports  the  names  and 
marvelous  deeds  of  the  prophets  in  Israel  and  the  sons  of 
the  prophets,  he  has  little  or  nothing  to  say  of  cotemporary 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  57 

prophets  in  Judah,  not  even  of  Joel,  Isaiali  and  liis  older 
cotemporarics.  He  omits  important  facts  concerning  Judah, 
Jerusalem,  the  Temple  and  the  priesthood,  narrated  later  by 
the  author  of  Chronicles,  so  that  it  appears  evident  that  he 
wrote  the  synchronistic  history  of  Judah  only  as  far  as  nec- 
essary for  a  better  understanding  of  the  history  of  Israel. 
This  undoubtedly  was  the  cause  which  prompted  the  author 
of  Chronicles  to  write  the  history  of  Judah,  Jerusalem,  the 
Temple  and  priesthood  without  more  than  absolutely  neces- 
sary reference  to  the  history  of  Israel.  Most  remarkable  in 
this  connection  is  the  notice  that  the  priest  who,  after  the 
fall  of  Samaria,  was  sent  among  the  aliens  of  Samaria  to 
teach  them  the  laws  and  religion  of  the  land,  was  one  of  the 
priests  of  Samaria,  and  not  of  Jerusalem  (2  Kings  xvii.  28). 
We  have  before  its  in  the  first  synoptic  an  anonymous 
prophet,  who,  after  the  fall  of  Samaria,  wrote  the  history  of 
Israel  with  special  reference  to  the  synchronistic  events  in 
Judah.  That  he  was  a  prophet  is  evident  from  the  space  he 
allots  to  the  prophetical  history.  That  he  was  an  exact  and 
truthful  historian  is  evident  now  by  the  corroboration  of 
his  statements  in  the  Babylonian-Assyrian  inscriptions.  It  is 
no  less  evident  that  he  must  have  written  prior  to  Jeremiah. 
According  to  2  Kings  xvii.  19  he  must  have  lived  in  the 
time  of  King  Menasseh,  as  appears  also  from  "  unto  this 
day  "  in  verses  23  and  41.  The  only  prophet  from  that 
period  who  might  have  written  it  is  Habakkuk  or  Nahum ; 
concluding  from  his  prophecy,  it  was  the  latter,  as  shall  be 
shown  further  on. 

The  first  chapters  from  the  Book  of  Nathan  may  be  dated 
about  980  B.  C. ;  the  chapters  from  Dibrei  Shelomoh,  960 
B.  C. ;  the  first  synoptic,  700  B.  C. ;  the  second  synoptic  and 
compiler  of  the  whole  book,  580  B.  C,  with  the  last  verses 
added  by  one  of  the  last  prophets. 

20.  In  these  four  books — Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel  and 
Kings — we  have  before  us  a  complete  and  chronologically  cor- 
rect history  of  the  ancient  Israel  from  their  coming  into  the 
land  of  Canaan  to  the  very  day  of  their  exile  to  Assyria  and 
then  to  Babylon,  all  written  by  prophets  for  the  instruction. 


58  The  Former  Prophets. 

of  the  people,  with  the  outspoken  object  in  view,  to  prove, 
by  authentic  history,  that  Israel's  salvation  is  in  God,  his 
covenants,  his  law,  and  all  national  misery  is  divine  retribu- 
tion for  rebellious  conduct.     As  soon  as  these  facts  were 
known,  these  books  became  canons ;    therefore  they  were 
called  Former  Prophets.     It  has  never  been  proved  that  any 
of  these  books,  or  any  portion  thereof,  was  ever  re-written 
according  to  Deuteronomy  or  any  other  literature,  nor  could 
it  be  proved.     The  style,  phraseology  and  tendency  of  the 
various  portions  of  this  literature  are  so  entirely  different 
from  one  another ;  the  irregularities  and  unevenness  in  the 
language  in  various  portions  of  the  books  also  have  been  so 
conscientiously  preserved,  that  evidently  no  corrector's  or 
reviser's  hand  ever  touched  them.     If  such  an  attempt  had 
ever  been  made  to  remodel  them  after  the  so-called  Jahvis- 
tic  or  Deuteromic  legislation,  the  Book  of  Judges  and  por- 
tions of  the  Book  of  Kings  must  certainly  have  been  elimi- 
nated or  re-written  first.     All  alleged  facts,  data  and  names 
of  persons  and  places  noted  in  these  books,  whenever  com- 
pared with  other  historical  material  having   any  bearing 
upon  them,  are  corroborated  and  confirmed.     Opposite  such 
sources  all  a  priori  speculations  underlying  the  construction 
or  reconstruction  of  Israelitish  history,  are  certainly  illegiti- 
mate and  unreliable.     Hitherto  all  critics  failed  in  disquali- 
fying these  historical  sources.     As  these  sources  establish 
the  facts  narrated  in  the  Pentateuch  and  its  Mosaic  origin, 
all   a  priori   speculations,   basing   upon   assumptions  and 
hypotheses,  are  null  and  void.     Indeed,  the  radical  critics 
never  attempted  to  invalidate  these  historical  sources  by  in- 
ternal evidence  or  by  comparison  with  cotemporary  events, 
they  having  started  out  with  the  hypothesis  that  there  was 
no  law   of  Moses  prior  to  Ezra  or  King  Joshiah,  sought 
means  to  disqualify  these  historical  books,  because  they 
undoubtedly  testify  to  the  existence  of  the  Mosaic  law  prior 
to  Joshua.   In  the  face  of  this  historical  testimony,  however, 
all  hypotheses  and  speculations  fall  to  the  ground,  and  with 
them  the  whole  artificial  structure  of  radical  criticism. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

THE   LATER   PROPHETS. 

THE  second  part  of  the  second  Canon  consists  of  the  four 
prophetical  books,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel  and  twelve 
Minor  Prophets.  The  names  of  the  authors  are  given  in 
each  of  the  fifteen  books,  and  in  some  of  them  the  respective 
names  are  mentioned  more  than  once ;  as,  for  instance,  in 
Isaiah  three  times,  twice  in  Ezekiel,  thirteen  times  in  Jere- 
miah, seventeen  times  in  Jonah,  three  times  in  Zechariah, 
nine  times  in  Haggai,  twice  in  Hosea  and  Amos,  and  once 
at  least  in  every  other  book.  Some  of  those  prophets  are 
mentioned  in  other  books  of  the  Bible,  as  Isaiah  in  2  Kings, 
Michah  in  Jeremiah  xxvi.,  Jonah  in  2  Kings  xiv.,  Obadiah  in 
1  Kings  xviii. ,  Haggai  and  Zechariah  twice  in  Ezra.  Only 
in  parts  of  Isaiah,  Jonah  and  Zechariah  is  the  authorship 
questionable ;  in  regard  to  all  the  other  prophets  it  is  gen- 
erally admitted  that  they  are  the  authors  of  the  books  bear- 
ing their  names,  the  exceptions  to  be  noticed  below,  after  we 
have  ascertained  the  dates  of  those  prophets. 

2.  It  is  necessary  to  review  the  literary  monuments  of 
these  prophets  in  chronological  order,  as  the  knowledge  of 
the  emergencies  and  vicissitudes  of  every  age  furnish  the 
key  to  a  proper  understanding  of  its  literature.  It  is  also 
of  special  interest  and  importance  to  know  that  a  regular 
and  uninterrupted  succession  of  prophets  is  recorded  in  the 
sacred  books.  This  establishes  two  facts  :  (a)  the  uninter- 
rupted current  of  tradition  in  Israel,  which  is  the  main  fort 
and  support  of  its  literary  material ;  and  (h)  the  continuous 
presence  in  all  ages  of  history,  of  a  prominent  and  numer- 
ous class  of  purely  Jahvistic-theocratic  worshipers  and 
patriots  as  the  main  body  of  the  nation,  among  whom  the 
semi-paganized  elements,  of  more  or  less  numerical  strength 


60  The  Later  Prophets. 

at  diflFerent  times,  Avere  the  demoralized  exceptions  in  the 
normal  condition  of  the  nation. 

Two  facts  must  be  borne  in  mind:  (a)  The  prophets  of 
Jehovah  were  at  no  time  isolated  individuals  of  a  visionary 
characterr,  or  teachers  of  religion  and  guardians  of  morality 
exclusively ;  they  were  the  representatives  and  spokesmen 
of  the  party  of  theocratic  patriots,  statesmen  and  advocates 
of  human  rights,  the  covenant  and  the  law  no  less  than  stern 
teachers  of . righteousness,  (b)  They  appear  in  Scriptures 
under  different  names,  as  Nahi^  Chozeh,  Ro'eh,  Ish  Elohim, 
Malach  Elohim,  also,  Malach  Jehovah*  These  different 
names  may  designate  different  ranks  among  those  inspired 
men,  whose  common  title  was  Nabi,  "spokesman"  (Exodus 
iv.  14;  vii.  1). 

According  to  the  traditions  recorded  in  the  Talmud  there 
was  an  uninterrupted  succession  of  prophets  from  Adam  to 
Abraham.  Prominent  among  them  were  Seth,  Enoch,  Me- 
thuselah (who  was  the  head  of  an  academy  '^^  ItJ^IID 
n'7ty)nD),  Noah,  Shem  and  Eber;  the  latter  two  are  also 
supposed  to  have  been  at  the  head  of  an  academy,  from 
which  A]:)raham  and  Jacob  derived  their  knowledge,  called 
"13^1  0^  ^7^  M^^ID  n"'2,  and  where  also  Rebecca  went  to 
inquire  of  the  Lord  (Genesis  xxv.  22).  In  the  time  of  the 
Patriarchs,  we  are  informed  in  Genesis,  there  lived  a  con- 
siderable number  of  such  inspired  messengers  of  God  (Gene- 
sis xix.  1 ;  xxii.  U,  14 ;  xxxii.  21).   From  Abraham  to  Moses 


*The  term  Malach  signifies  "messenger,"  either  profane  or 
divine  ;  if  the  latter,  it  is  rendered  "  angel."  It  ia  synonymous  with 
Malachah,  "  work,"  and  designates  a  person  or  thing  doing  a  cer- 
tain work,  an  active  agent,  a  factor.  In  Scriptures  persons  are 
called  Malach,  as  the  high  priest  in  Malachi  ii.  7,  the  prophet  in 
Haggai  i.  13,  and  elsewhere.  In  the  Talmud  the  grandson  of 
Aaron,  Phineas,  is  called  an  angel  in  explanation  of  Judges  ii.  1 : 
"And  an  angel  of  Jehovah  went  up  from  Gilgal  to  Bochim."  This 
angel  was' Phineas.  The  angel  of  Exodus  xxiii.  20  is  considered 
identical  with  the  Nabi  of  Deuteronomy  xviii.  15-22,  by  Moses 
Maimonides  and  others.  Elements  also  are  called  angels.  Psalms 
civ.  4,  and  the  wind  a  word  of  God  (ibid,  cxlvii.  18). 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  61 

the  succession  was  Isaac,  Jacob  and  their  wives,  Levi, 
Kehath,  Amrani  and  Moses,  which  seems  to  be  based  on 
1  Samuel  ii.  27,  28  and  this  again  on  Deuteronomy  xxxiii. 
8-11.  However,  the  idea  underlying  this  tradition  ma}'  be  that 
of  successive  revelation  and  the  conservation  of  knowledge 
by  natural  means. 

In  the  time  of  Moses  many  prophets  are  mentioned : 
Aaron,  Miriam,  Hur,  Eldad,  Medad,  the  seventy  elders,  and 
Moses  expresses  the  wish  that  all  the  people  of  the  Lord  be 
prophets.  Between  Joshua  and  Samuel,  although  we  pos- 
sess of  that  time  mere  fragments  and  episodes  of  history,  for 
the  most  time  a  bare  nomenclature  of  Judges,  the  continu- 
ous existence  of  the  Jahvistic-theocratic  patriots  as  the  bulk 
and  kernel  of  the  people  and  the  appearance  of  prophets  are 
continually  noticed.  In  Judges  i.  2  appears  the  Malach 
Jehovah,  supposed  to  be  Phineas.  Ibid.,  chapter  iii.,  appears 
Othniel,  son  of  Kenaz,  of  whom  it  is  said,  "  And  the 
spirit  of  Jehovah  was  upon  him  "  (verse  10).  Chapters  iv. 
and  V.  the  Prophetess  Deborah  appears  in  her  full  glory  of 
monotheism  and  theocratic  patriotism.  Ibid.,  chapter  vi., 
there  appears  first  the  Ish  Nabi,  "  the  man  prophet,"  who 
speaks  to  the  children  of  Israel ;  then  the  Malach  Jehovah, 
who  speaks  to  Gideon ;  and  then  Gideon  himself,  of  whom 
it  is  stated  repeatedly,  "And  God  said  to  Gideon."  After 
the  death  of  Gideon  and  Abimelech  follows  a  long  time  of 
peace  and  prosperity,  always  supposed  to  be  a  period  of 
theocratic  piety,  when  no  prophet  is  heard.  Right  after 
that  follows  Jephthah,  of  whom  it  is  stated,  "And  there  was 
upon  Jephthah  the  spirit  of  Jehovah  "  (xi.  29).  Then  comes 
again  the  Malach  Jehovah  to  the  mother  of  Samson  (xiii.  2), 
who  is  called  in  the  same  chapter  Ish  Ho'elohim,  "  The  man 
of  God  "  (verse  8),  and  plainly  Ish  (verse  10) ;  and  also  Sam- 
son, of  whom  it  is  stated  three  times  that  the  spirit  of  Jeho- 
vah moved  and  incited  him  (xiii.  28;  xiv.  6,  19).  This 
brings  the  prophetical  succession  down  to  Samuel,  and  with 
it  the  permanent  Jahvistic  theocracy  also. 

With  Samuel  begins  a  new  period  of  prophecy  and  litera- 
ture.  For  a  long  time  none  was  acknowledged  from  Dan  to 


62  The  Later  Prophets. 

Beer  Sheba,  a  prophet  of  Jehovah,  as  he  was,  no  revelation 
from  Jehovah  was  received  at  Shiloh  as  Samuel  did  (1  Sam- 
uel iii.  20,  21).  Tradition  credits  him  with  the  establish- 
ment of  the  school  of  prophets  at  Najoth  in  Ramah,  the 
disciples  of  ^\hich  were  called  Bene  Hannehiim,  "  Sons  of  the 
Projihets."  Choruses  of  these  prophetical  disciples  existed 
in  the  land  during  the  latter  days  of  Samuel  (ibid.  x.  9,  10), 
whose  insi^iring  influence  neither  King  Saul  nor  his  messen- 
gers could  resist  (ibid.  xix.  18-24),  called  there  plainly  a 
chorus  of  prophets.  Their  i3resence  and  influence  are 
noticed  in  the  historical  records,  also  in  the  kingdom  of 
Israel,  down  to  the  end  of  the  Ahab  dynasty  ( 1  Kings  xx. 
25 ;  2  Kings  ii.  3,  5,  8,  15  ;  vi.  1).  This  one  fact  proves  the 
continuous  prophetical  succession  from  Samuel  to  Elijah 
and  Elisha  and  Joel.  The  succession,  however,  during 
this  whole  period  is  marked  in  the  historical  records  also 
by  prominent  names  of  j^rophets.  Shortly  after  the  death 
of  Samuel  we  meet  with  David  in  the  cave  of  Adullam,  the 
Prophet  Gad  (1  Samuel  xxii.  5).  During  the  lifetime  of 
Saul,  and  to  his  very  end,  the  jirophets  are  there,  although 
no  particular  names  are  given  (ibid,  xxviii.  6).  At  the 
court  of  David,  as  King  of  all  Israel,  we  meet  the  Prophet 
Nathan,  high  in  authority  (2  Samuel  vii.  and  xii. ;  1  Kings 
i.)  and  also  Gad  (2  Samuel  xxiv,  11-14).  At  the  court  of 
Solomon  the  prophetical  voice  was  suppressed,  still  at  the 
end  of  his  days  it  resounds  so  much  more  terribly  by  Ahiah, 
of  Shiloh  (1  Kings  xi.  29-39),  to  whom  is  added  in  2  Chron- 
icles, Jedi  the  Seer  (ix.  29).  After  the  demise  of  Solomon, 
the  prophetical  voice  of  Shemaiah  is  heard  (1  Kings  xii. 
22-24;  2  Chronicles  xi.  2-4 ;  xii.  5),  called  in  one  account 
Ish  Ho'elohini,  and  in  the  other  Nabi.  Shortly  after  we  read 
of  another  Ish  Elohim  coming  from  Judah  to  Beth  El 
exhorting  King  Jeroboam,  who  finds  in  Beth  El  ''  an  old 
prophet"  (2  Kings  xiii.) ;  and  Jeroboam  sends  his  wife 
stealthily  to  the  Prophet  Ahiah.  This  phalanx  of  prophets 
is  succeeded  in  the  days  of  King  Asa  by  Azariah  ben  Oded, 
and  later  on  by  Hanani  the  Seer  (2  Chronicles  xv.  1-7  and 
xvi.  7-9).     Cotemporary  with  Azariah  was  in  Israel  Jehu 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  63 

ben  Hanani,  whose  message  to  King  Bashah  is  noted,  2  Kings 
xvi.  1-4.  With  Hanani  the  Seer  we  come  down  to  the 
thirty-fifth  year  of  Asa.  Three  years  later  Ahab  mounts  the 
throne  of  Israel,  and  five  to  six  years  later  Jehoshaphat 
mounts  the  throne  of  Judah.  During  the  reign  of  these 
kings  appears  the  prophetical  pillar  of  fire,  Elijah  the  Tish- 
bite,  his  disciple,  Elishah,  Michaiahu  ben  Jimlah,  a  host  of 
true  and  of  false  prophets,  and  sons  of  the  prophets.  So 
also  by  this  historical  nomenclature  we  establish  the  con- 
tinuous succession  of  prophets  and  the  Jahvistic  theocracy 
from  Samuel  to  Elijah,  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  3"ears. 
The  chain  of  succession  is  no  less  solid  from  Eliah  to 
Isaiah,  with  whom  a  new  period  of  prophetical  literature 
begins.  During  the  long  reign  of  King  Jehoshaphat/  the 
records  show  besides  Elijah,  Elishah  and  Michaiahu,  also  the 
Prophets  Jahaziel  ben  Zechariah  (2  Chronicles  xx.  14-17) ; 
Eliezer  ben  Dodovahu  (ibid,  verse  37)  ;  Jehu  ben  Hanani 
again  (ibid.  xix.  2)  and  Joel  ben  Pethuel,  of  whom  we  treat 
below.  These  later  prophets  outlived  King  Jehoshaphat. 
During  the  next  following  sixteen  years,  under  the  reign  of 
the  wicked  Jehoram,  Ahaziah  and  Athaliah,  no  prophets 
speak,  still  those  mentioned  last  must  have  outlived  the 
evil  years,  as  Elishah  died  thirty-eight  years  later  (2  Kings 
xiii.  10,  14-20) ;  and  an  exhorting  letter  of  Elijah  to  King 
Jehoram  is  noticed  in  2  Chronicles  xxi.  12-15.  During  the 
reign  of  King  Joash,  the  prophets  are  noticed  (ibid.  xxiv. 
19),  and  especially  Zechariah  ben  Jehoiada,  who  was  slain 
in  the  court  of  the  temple  by  command  of  the  king.  Under 
the  successor  of  Joash,  his  son  Amaziah,  we  meet  again 
with  the  Ish  Ha^elohim,  and  later  on  with  the  Nahi,  announc- 
ing divine  messages  of  retribution  to  this  king  (2  Chronicles 
XXV.  7,  15) ;  and  also  Jonah  ben  Amithai  from  Gath  Hepher 
(2  Kings  xiv.  25),  who  prophesied  success  to  Jeroboam  II., 
as  this  king  mounted  the  throne  of  Israel  in  the  fifteenth 
year  of  Amaziah's  reign.  This  brings  the  succession  down 
to  the  time  of  King  IJzziah,  called  in  2  Kings  Azariah  (xiv. 
21),  whose  prophetical  adviser  was  another  Zechariah 
(2  Chronicles  xxvi.  5) — perhaps  identical  with  the  one  men- 


64  The  Later  Prophets. 

tioned  in  Isaiah  viii.  2 — and  in  direct  connection  with  Amos 
(i.  1),  Hosea  (i.  1),  Isaiah  (i.  1),  and  his  younger  cotempo- 
rary,  Michah  (i.  1 ;  Jeremiah  xxvi.  18).  During  the  reign 
of  Ahaz  there  was  also  in  Samaria  the  Prophet  Oded  (2 
Chronicles  xxviii.  9),  whose  remarkable  influence  upon  the 
victorious  warriors  of  Samaria  furnishes  no  mean  evidence 
to  the  effect  that  the  Jahvistic  theocracy  predominated  also 
in  the  northern  kingdom  notwithstanding  the  schism  of 
Jeroboam. 

Tradition  accuses  Hezekiah's  son  and  successor,  Menasseh, 
of  having  slain  the  Prophet  Isaiah,  which  says  that  he  out- 
lived Hezekiah.  This  seems  also  to  be  the  case  with  the 
Prophet  Michah.  It  seems  quite  likely  that  Isaiah  xiii.  and 
xiv.  was  written  when  Menassah  Avas  a  captive  in  Babylon 
(2  Chronicles  xxxiii.  10,  11)  ;  and  Michah  vi.  and  vii.  were 
written  in  the  time  of  that  king.  Besides  this,  however,  dur- 
ing the  fifty-seven  years  of  Menasseh's  and  Amon's  reign, 
when  Jerusalem  and  the  country  were  so  much  paganized, 
the  prophets  were  not  silent.  The  prophets'  exhorting  and 
threatening  voices  are  noticed  in  2  Kings  xxi.  11-15,  and  in 
2  Chronicles  xxxiii.  10,  18,  where  one  of  them,  called  Hozai, 
is  specially  mentioned.  Besides  them,  as  we  shall  see  below, 
Nahum,  Habakkuk  and  Zephaniah  belong  to  this  age.  Thus 
we  are  led  in  regular  succession  to  the  prophetess  Huldah 
and  the  Prophet  Jeremiah.  In  the  time  of  this  inspired  and 
woe-stricken  patriot  there  lived  an  abundance  of  true  and 
false  prophets,  also  ill-fated  Uriah,  who  was  slain  by  King 
Jehoiakim  (Jeremiah  xxvi.  20-23),  besides  his  younger 
cotemporary,  Ezekiel,  in  Babylonia.  There  also  was  no 
scarcity  of  both  kinds  of  prophets,  besides  Daniel  and  his^ 
companions  (Ezekiel  xxii.  23-28;  xxxiv.),  so  that  among 
the  colonies  returning  from  the  exile  there  were  prophets 
even  besides  Haggi,  Zechariah  and  Malachi,  and  they  were 
there  yet  in  considerable  numbers  besides  the  Prophetess 
Noadiah  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah  (Nehemiah  vi.  7,  12,  14). 
With  Haggai  the  millenium  of  prophecy  closes,  which  begins 
with  Moses,  and  up  to  him  no  ring  is  missing  in  the  chain 
of  succession.     So  the  genius  of  the  Hebrew  people  mani- 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Weit.  65 

fested  itself  continually  and  continuously  for  one  thousand 
years  through  those  favored  persons,  whose  knowledge,  wis- 
dom, zeal  and  enthusiasm  outshine  and  overtower  all  pro- 
ducts of  their  cotemporary  intelligence  which  have  reached 
us.     This  is  certainly  marvelous  if  not  miraculous. 

3.  The  Book  of  Joel  (Yo'el)  ben  Pethuel  is  before  us  in 
four  chapters  (modern  division),  of  seventy-three  verses,  the 
middle  of  which  is  ii.  17.  The  whole  of  Minor  Prophets,  of 
which  Joel's  is  one  of  the  twelve  books  thereof,  contains 
twenty-one  Sedarim  (ancient  division),  one  thousand  and 
fifty  verses,  the  half  of  which  is  in  Michah  iii.  12,  which, 
remarkable  enough,  is  the  direct  prediction  of  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  and  its  temple,  a  parallel  to  Amos  ii.  5.  This 
Joel  book,  undoubtedly  written  by  himself,  according  to  its 
purely  Hebraic  diction,  clear  and  unequivocal  phraseology, 
stands  nearest  among  all  the  Later  Prophets  to  the  David 
and  Solomon  age,  as  it  is  reflected  in  the  Davidian  Psalms 
and  Solomonic  Proverbs.  This,  it  seems,  led  some  of  the 
ancient  rabbis  to  confound  this  prophet  with  Joel,  the  son 
of  Samuel  and  father  of  Heman,  the  great  master  of  music 
in  the  time  of  King  David  (1  Chronicles  vi.  18).  Later  ex- 
pounders, however,  understood  this  rabbinical  expression^ 
"son  of  Samuel,"  like  "  disciple  of  Samuel,"  or  one  of  the 
school  of  Samuel.  This  seems  to  be  correct,  as  that  David- 
Solomon  period  of  the  Hebrew  style  originated  from  the 
Samuel  school  at  Najoth.  The  fact  that  this  prophet  knows 
of  no  Assyrian,  Babylonian  or  even  Syrian  invasion  of 
Judah,  speaks  of  no  dispersion  and  restoration  of  the 
nation,  and  mentions  only  Edom,  Ammon,  Moab  and  the 
Philistines  as  enemies  of  Judah,  points  distinctly  to  the 
latter  days  of  King  Jehoshaphat,  when,  according  to  2 
Chronicles  xx.  1  and  10,  those  nationalities  invaded  Judah, 
and  most  likely  after  a  long  period  of  hostilities  and  depre- 
dations, were  checked,  not  by  the  force  of  the  Judaic  arms, 
but  by  dissensions  among  themselves  (verse  23),  which 
forced  them  to  flee  in  wild  disorder  at  the  approach  of 
Jehoshaphat's  army.  This  was  shortly  after  a  period  of 
famine  in  the  Kingdom  of  Israel  (2  Kings  viii.)  under  the 


66  The  Later  Prophets. 

reign  of  Jehoram,  and  the  Prophet  Joel  dwells  on  this  sub- 
ject most  emphatically — the  singeing  drought  which  destroys 
even  the  trees  of  the  field,  and  the  army  of  locusts  which 
consumes  the  last  blade  of  grass,  the  consequent  famine  and 
mourning  among  men  and  beasts,  the  prayers,  fasts  and 
repentance  of  sins  among  the  cheerless  people,  the  mercy  of 
God  and  his  final  sending  of  the  first  rain  and  the  latter  rain 
together  in  the  unusual  time  of  the  first  month  of  the  year, 
which  puts  an  end  to  the  misery  (Joel  ii.  23).  All  this 
points  to  the  days  of  Jehoshaphat  and  Jehoram.  Besides 
these  points,  there  is  yet  the  fact  that  Joel  speaks  with 
reverence  and  adoration  of  Zion,  the  holy  mount,  the  altar, 
the  sacrifices,  the  priesthood  and  their  office,  as  none  of  the 
later  prophets  do.  This  state  of  the  cult  and  the  law  could 
only  have  been  in  the  time  of  King  Jehoshaphat,  whose  re- 
forms were  not  limited  to  the  city  and  temple  of  Jerusalem, 
but  permeated  the  masses  of  the  people  (2  Chronicles  xix. 
and  XX.) ;  or  in  the  time  of  the  high  priest  Jehoiadah,  or 
King  Hezekiah.  However,  the  style  of  the  book  and  the 
peculiarity  of  the  promises  connected  with  this  prophetical 
oracle  pointing  to  a  time  after  the  David-Solomonic  age  and 
to  the  lofty  inspiration  of  the  Elijah  and  Elishah  time,  as 
the  conjuncture  of  events  touched  upon  in  the  book  point  to 
the  time  of  Jehoshaphat,  we  may  safely  assert  that  Joel  was 
written  in  the  decade  prior  to  880  B.  C.  This  is  also  the 
opinion  of  the  celebrated  commentator,  Moses  Chiquitilla, 
expressed  in  his  Perush  Threi-Assar* 

4.  The  first  verse  of  Joel  iv.  is  taken  as  a  proof  that  this 
chapter  at  least  was  not  written  before  the  fall  of  Samaria, 
or  perhaps  not  before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  For  that  verse 
reads  :  "  For  behold,  in  those  days  and  in  that  time  when 
D^^J^'nn  ni*in*  mn:r  nX  yirn  (usually  translated)  I 
will  bring  back  the  captives  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem ;  and  I 
will  assemble  all  the  nations  and  I  will  bring  them  down 
into  the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat,  and  I  will  go  into  judgment 


*The  Valley  of  Jehoshaphat  (Joel  iv.  2)  was  afterward  called 
Emek  Barachah  (2  Chronicles  xx.  26). 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  67 

with  them  on  account  of  my  people  and  my  inheritance, 
Israel,  which  they  scattered  among  the  nations,  and  my 
land  (which  they)  divided."  This  is  a  mistaken  notion, 
however ;  because 

(a)  In  verses  3  and  6  the  prophet  states  plainly  that  the 
scattered  of  Israel  were  either  kidnapped  or  captured  per- 
sons who  had  been  sold  to  the  Greeks  as  slaves,  to  which 
refer  Amos  i.  6-13 ;  Zephaniah  iii.  10,  and  Zechariah  ix.  13, 
as  is  also  evident  from  2  Kings  v.  2.  Besides  this,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  voluntary  migration  of  Hebrews  began  as  early  as 
the  time  of  King  Solomon. 

(b)  The  phrase  translated,  "  I  will  bring  back  thy  captives," 
is  a  quotation  from  Deuteronomy  xxx.  3,  where  it  is  evident 
from  ♦^  1J7  ^\2ly^  in  the  preceding  verse,  and  from  ^JJ^I 
"IVDpl  following  this  passage,  as  also  from  the  Aramaic 
rendition  by  Jonathan,  Ibn  Ezra's  quotation  from  Judah 
Chaiyug,  the  Sepurni  and  others,  that  it  must  be  rendered  : 
"And  the  Lord  thy  God  will  cause  to  return  thy  peni- 
tents." So,  and  not  otherwise,  this  phrase  must  be  under- 
stood here  and  wherever  it  occurs,  as  in  Psalms  xiv.  7  and 
liii.  7,  as  proved  by  Psalms  Ixxxv.,  where  this  phrase  is  fol- 
lowed by  its  definition  :  "  Thou  hast  forgiven  the  iniquity 
of  thy  people,  thou  hast  covered  over  all  their  sins."  * 

(c)  The  Prophet  Joel  (iv.  4)  tells  who  they  were  that 
scattered  Israel  among  the  nations  and  divided  its  lands. 
They  were  the  men  of  Tyre,  Zidon  and  Philistia,  the  marau- 
ders and  slave-traders  of  those  days,  and  not  the  Assyrians 
or  Babylonians ;  consequently,  he  must  necessarily  have 
spoken  of  a  time  prior  to  the  very  first  Assyrian  invasions, 
if  even  the  phrase  in  (6)  is  understood  as  in  the  authorized 
English  translation. 

There  is  evidently  no  trace  in  this  whole  book  of  any  time 
after  880  B.  C. 

5.  Amos  was  the  oldest  of  the  four  prophets  that  prophe- 
sied simultaneously,  viz.,  Hosea,  Amos,  Isaiah  and  Michah. 
According  to  tradition  Hosea  was  the  oldest,  but  not  accord- 

*See  Mechilta,  Friedmann's  edition,  p.  166.,  on  35M. 


68  The  Later  Prophets. 

ing  to  the  testimony  of  their  respective  books.  Amos 
prophesied  in  the  time  of  Jeroboam  II.,  King  of  Israel,  and 
Uzziah,  King  of  Judah  (Amos  i.  1),  and  not  even  to  the  last 
years  of  King  Jeroboam.  If  he  had  known  of  the  victories 
and  conquests  of  this  king,  the  glorious  achievements  of  his 
cotemporary.  King  Uzziah,  in  Judah,  and  the  reviving  hopes 
and  prosperity  of  the  people  (2  Kings  xv. ;  2  Chronicles 
xxvi.),  he  must  have  noticed  them  in  his  speeches.  Hosea 
(i.  1)  lived  from  the  time  of  Uzziah  and  Jeroboam  to  the 
time  of  Hezekiah.  In  his  prophecies  the  victories  and  con- 
quests of  both  kings,  the  wealth,  prosperity  and  reviving 
hopes  of  the  people,  connected  with  unbridled  luxury  and 
moral  corruption,  are  re-echoed  in  unmistakable  language. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  evident  that  this  prophet  had  no 
knowledge  of  the  Assyrian  invasion  in  the  fourth  year  of 
Hezekiah,  and  the  Shalmon  Baith  Arbal  in  x.  14  can  not 
refer  to  Salmanaser,  who  reigned  from  727-725  B.  C,  as  he 
only  knew  of  emigrants  that  had  gone  to  Assyria  and  Egypt. 
He  only  knows  of  the  hope  and  confidence  placed  in  that 
power  and  in  Egypt  (Hosea  xi.  5,  11 ;  xiv.  2-10),  which 
points  directly  to  the  time  of  King  Ahaz  (2  Kings  xvi.,  and 
2  Chronicles  xxviii.).  His  prophecies  can  be  placed  only 
between  the  last  years  of  Rehoboam  II.,  and  about  the  mid- 
dle of  the  time  of  Ahaz.  Isaiah  (i.  1)  was  a  younger  cotem- 
porary of  Hosea.  In  the  heading  to  this  book  the  name  of 
Jeroboam  is  omitted.  His  prophecies,  however,  beginning 
with  the  death  of  King  Uzziah  (vi.  1),  are  chiefly  from  the 
time  of  Ahaz  and  Hezekiah  and  reach  into  the  time  of  King 
Menasseh.  Michah  must  have  been  a  younger  cotemporary 
of  Isaiah,  whose  diction  he  has  acquired,  and  with  whom  he 
has  form  and  contents  of  prophecy  and  even  texts  in  com- 
mon (Michah  iv.  and  Isaiah  ii.).  He  is  noticed  (ibid.  i.  1)  in 
the  reigh  of  Jotham,  Ahaz  and  Hezekiah  only.  Still  he  has 
evidently  not  seen  the  fall  of  Samaria.  His  prophecies  can 
be  placed  only  between  Ahaz  and  the  sixth  year  of  Hezekiah. 
The  dates  for  these  prophecies  may  be  thus  : 

Amos,  816  to  780  B.  C. 

Hosea,  750  to  730  B.  C. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  69 

Isaiah,  735  to  700  B.  C.,with  chapter  vi.  from  757  B.C. 
Michah,  735  to  720  B.  C. 

5.  The  Book  of  Amos,  written  by  him,  is  before  us  in 
nine  chapters  (modern  division),  146  verses,  the  middle  of 
which  is  V.  15,  remarkable  for  the  shortness  of  its  chapters, 
of  13,  14,  15,  16,  17,  and  but  one  of  27  verses.  He  came  from 
among  the  herdsmen  of  Thekoa,  a  town  noted  for  its  wise 
women  already  in  the  time  of  King  David  (2  Samuel  xiv. ). 
When  he  was  expelled  from  Beth  El  by  the  priest,  he  said 
of  himself:  "  I  am  no  prophet  and  no  son  of  a  prophet ;  I 
am  a  herdsman  and  a  gatherer  of  sycamore  fruit ;  and  the 
Lord  took  me,  as  I  followed  the  flock,  and  the  Lord  said  to 
me.  Go,  prophesy  unto  my  people  Israel"  (Amos  vii.  14, 
15).  But  once  he  refers  to  the  misdeeds  of  Judah  (ii.  4,  5), 
as  he  does  to  the  surrounding  petty  nations,  and  twice  to  the 
punishment  in  store  for  Judah  (vi.  1).  All  his  messages, 
exhortations  and  prophecies  are  directed  to  Israel  and  its 
King,  Joroboam  II.,  with  the  only  exception  of  the  closing 
message,  in  which  he  announces  the  restoration  of  "  the 
fallen  booth  of  David  "  and  the  restoration  of  Israel  and  its 
country  after  the  period  of  devastation  and  desolation. 

There  are  system  and  unity  in  Amos'  book.  Chapter  i.-iv. 
consists  of  prophetical  messages,  v.-ix.  of  prophetical 
visions,  with  an  exalted  finale.  The  diction  is  not  as  simple 
and  clear  as  in  Joel ;  it  contains  some  few  orthographic 
irregularities,  aside  of  which  it  is  idiomatic  and  classical. 

6.  The  Book  of  Hosea  (Hoshea),  son  of  Beeri,  a  citizen 
of  the  northern  kingdom — according  to  the  traditions  the 
scion  of  an  aristocratic  family — is  before  us  in  fourteen  chap- 
ters (modern  division),  197  verses,  the  middle  of  which  is 
vii.  13.  This  book,  like  Amos',  is  remarkable  for  its  short 
chapters,  the  longest  of  which  is  one  of  twenty-five  and  the 
shortest  one  of  five  verses.  The  book  begins  with  propheti- 
cal visions  (i.  to  iii.)  symbolizing  the  prevailing  corruption 
in  the  Kingdom  of  Israel  and  closing  up  hopefully  for  Israel's 
re-elevation  and  its  return  to  the  only  God  and  the  Davidian 
dynasty,  i.  e.,  to  union  with  Judah.  This  portion  was  evi- 
dently written  in  the  earlier  period  of  the  prophet's  life; 


70  The  Later  Prophets. 

V -xiv.  consists  of  prophetical  speeches  of  a  stern  character, 
addressed  to  the  people,  its  priests  and  the  house  of  its  king, 
recounting  in  forcible  language  the  prevailing  aberrations 
and  corruptions  and  announcing  with  perfect  certainty  the 
punishment,  the  particular  nature  of  it,  which  will  come 
over  the  commonwealth,  and  the  restoration  of  Israel  after 
the  punishment  shall  have  purified  the  remnant  of  the 
people ;  i.-iii.  is  prosiac,  vi.-xiv.  is  rhythmical,  that  kind  of 
blank  verse  in  the  various  forms  of  parallelism  which  makes 
Hosea  in  diction  the  immediate  forerunner  of  Isaiah.  The 
language  is  antique  but  faultless,  the  phraseology  frequently 
elliptic  and  enigmatical.  Amos  speaks  like  an  inspired 
herdsman,  Hosea  like  a  trained  orator  of  the  prophetical 
school,  not  so  well  used  as  his  predecessor  to  the  popular 
diction. 

7.  The  Book  of  Isaiah  (Yeshayah  or  Yeshayahu)  ben 
Amoz — according  to  tradition  the  nephew  by  his  father  of 
King  Amaziah — is  before  us  in  sixty-six  chapters  (modern 
division)  thirty  Sedarim  (ancient  division),  1,295  verses, 
the  half  of  which  is  xxxiii.  21.  Besides  chapter  vi.,  which  is 
a  prophetical  vision,  consists,  from  i.  to  xxxv.,  of  pro- 
phetical orations,  and  xxxvi.  to  xxxix.  of  historical  nar- 
ratives, three  episodes  from  the  life  of  King  Hezekiah. 
From  xl.  to  Ixvi.  are  again  prophetical  orations,  of  a  different 
nature,  however,  than  the  former.  The'  former,  except 
chapter  vi.,  refer  to  the  time  of  the  Kings  Ahaz  and  Hezekiah. 
Chapter  one  points  clearly  (verses  seven  and  eight)  to  the 
invasion  of  Judea  by  Rezin  and  Pekah  in  the  time  of  Ahaz. 
The  next  following  four  chapters  can  not  refer  to  any  time 
during  the  reign  of  King  Jotham,  who  was  a  God-fearing 
man  (2  Kings  xv.  34)  and  an  eminent  ruler  over  a  prosperous 
people  (2  Chronicles  xxvii.).  They  could  refer  only  to  the 
time  of  Ahaz.  It  seems  that  these  five  chapters  were  not 
considered  by  the  compilers  of  equally  high  degree  of 
prophecy  with  the  following  chapters,  and  were  therefore 
placed  before  the  beginning  of  his  prophetical  speeches. 
Nowhere  in  these  chapters  is  it  found  that  God  said  or  spoke 
to  Isaiah,  as  it  occurs  in  the  next  following  chapters  (vi.  8 ; 


J 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ,  71 

vii.  3,  7 ;  viii.  1,  5,  e.  s.)  These  first  speeches  are  character- 
ized by  the  terms  ^')'^r\  and  11*11,  "  vision  "  and  not  by  verbal 
communications  from  God,  as  are  other  chapters  of  the  same 
book.  If  the  amendation  was  not  too  venturous,  we  would 
say  vi.  1  should  read  :  *'  In  the  year  of  the  death  of  Jotham." 
Isaiah  was  first  an  inspired  teacher  of  righteousness,  who 
became  a  prophet  in  the  time  of  the  invasions,  wars,  national 
misfortunes  and  catastrophes  with  which  the  eighth  century 
B,  C.  closed.  The  heading  Massa,  which  the  prophet  assumes 
from  the  thirteenth  chapter,  distinguishes  his  prophecies  to 
the  Gentiles  from  those  to  Israel.  His  references  to  Baby- 
lon and  its  downfall  may  have  been  inspired  by  the  successful 
rebellion  of  Morodoch  Baladon,  in  whose  success  he  saw  the 
rise  of  another  powerful  enemy  to  the  smaller  countries  be- 
tween the  Euphrates  and  the  River  of  Egypt,  whose  final 
downfall,  however,  he  predicted,  and  it  was  fulfilled ;  for 
Morodoch  was  slain  six  months  after  his  messengers  to 
Hezekiah  returned,  and  under  his  son  and  successor  Babylon 
was  retaken  by  the  Medes.  The  prophet,  hostile  to  all 
reliance  on  foreign  powers,  is  no  less  hostile  to  any  reliance 
on  the  then  youthful  and  promising  power  of  Babylon, 
whose  speedy  downfall  he  predicts.  Chapter  xix.  merely 
shows  that  the  emigration  from  Judea  and  Israel  into  Egypt 
was  as  numerous  then  as  it  was  into  Babylonia,  to  escape 
from  the  power  of  Assyria,  as  is  evident  from  other  passages 
in  Isaiah.  He  prophesied  success  to  the  emigrants  in  Egj-pt, 
as  he  did  prophesy  the  downfall  of  Babylon.  Egypt  is  near 
and  Babylon  very  distant  from  Palestine.  The  emigrants  to 
Egypt,  he  may  have  thought,  might  return  after  the  fall  of 
Assyria,  or  might  always  remain  in  close  intercourse  with 
their  country  and  people,  neither  of  Avhich  could  be  expected 
from  those  that  migrated  to  distant  Babylon.  There  exists 
no  necessity  to  suppose  that  any  chapter,  or  part  of  one, 
from  i.  to  xxxix.  was  not  written  by  the  very  Isaiah,  son  of 
Amoz,  whose  name  is  at  the  head  of  the  book.  The  tradition 
that  Hezekiah  and  his  commission  "  wrote,"  or  rather  col- 
lected and  compiled  the  book  oflsaiah,  might  be  correct  if  we 
presume  that  the  said  literary  commission,  called  in  Proverbs 


72  The  Later  Prophets. 

"the  men  of  Hezekiah,"  was  not  dissolved  at  once  after  the 
death  of  that  king.  The  absence  of  dates  and  chronological 
succession  in  parts  of  the  book  could  only  prove  that  the 
compilers  were  governed  by  another  than  the  chronological 
principle,  as  is  also  the  case  in  Psalms,  the  twelve  Minor 
Prophets  and  partly  also  in  Jeremiah.  It  is  yet  to  be 
ascertained  what  that  principle  was.  The  Talmud  admits 
n^IDD  *ini}<D1  Dlp)f2  (\N*  "there  is  no  chronological  order 
in  the  Thorah,"  without  informing  us  of  any  other  principle 
which  guided  the  compilers.  The  other  tradition  of  the 
Talmud,  however,  that  King  Menassah  slew  Isaiah,  seems 
to  be  a  mere  allegory  suggesting  that  Menassah  in  his 
wickedness  uprooted  and  destroyed  all  the  piety  and  patriot- 
ism which  Isaiah  had  cultivated  among  his  people.  With 
Isaiah  begins  the  third  epoch  of  the  Hebrew  language.  His 
vocabulary  is  the  richest,  his  tropes  most  artistical,  his 
diction  fully  rhythmical,  his  poesy  as  mystical  and  sublime 
as  Job's  or  Homer's,  all  of  which  he  outshines  by  the  total 
absence  of  fiction  in  his  speeches  and  the  unparalleled 
power  of  formulating  most  sublime  truths  in  the  briefest  and 
most  expressive  words.  He,  like  Joel,  is  a  prophet  of  Judah 
especially.  Israel  in  his  time  was  an  enemy  of  Judah,  and 
later  on  it  fell  with  the  destruction  of  Samaria  by  Salman- 
asar.  Then  came  the  invasion  of  Judea  by  Sennacherib  and 
his  discomfiture  before  the  walls  of  Jerusalem.  These  are 
the  main  events  which  engaged  the  mind  of  Isaiah,  except 
where  he  casts  the  seer's  glance  into  the  distant  future  of 
Israel  and  the  human  family,  full  of  hope  and  cheer,  also 
under  the  most  distressing  vicissitudes  of  the  present,  with 
unlimited  confidence  in  the  course  of  Providence,  the  future 
of  mankind,  the  final  triumph  of  truth,  righteousness  and 
goodness  among  all  nations. 

8.  Isaiah  xl.  to  Ixvi,  is  the  product  of  another  prophet,  or 
other  prophets,  that  lived  from  near  the  close  of  the  Baby- 
lonian captivity  to  a  time  after  the  dedication  of  the  Second 
Temple,  540  to  510  B.  C.  This  is  partly  admitted  by  that 
Talmudical  tradition  which,  in  the  order  of  prophets,  places 
Isaiah  after  Ezekiel.     Besides  it  is  maintained  in  Leviticus 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  73 

Rabba,  chapter  xv.,  that  two  prophecies  of  Bari,  father  of 
Hosea,  were  attached  to  the  book  of  Isaiah ;  hence  it  is  ad- 
mitted that  not  all  of  that  book  is  of  Isaiah.  Abraham  Ibn 
Ezra,  in  his  commentary  to  Isaiah,  maintains  that  Jekaniah, 
or  Jehoyachin,  the  King  of  Judah,  who  was  carried  captive  to 
Babylon  in  the  ninteenth  year  of  his  life  (2  Kings  xxiv.  8), 
and  kept  there  imprisoned  thirty-seven  years,  till  released 
by  Evil  Morodoch,  was  the  very  prophet  who  produced  those 
chapters  of  the  Isaiah  book.*  This  ingenious  hypothesis 
accounts  well  for  the  classical  Palestinean  diction  and  many 
obscure  passages  in  the  book,  but  not  for  all.  Zerubabel 
could  not  well  have  become  Governor  of  the  colony  as  long 
as  the  legitimate  King  of  Judah  lived,  and  part  of  the  Deutro 
Isaiah  was  certainly  spoken  after  the  return  from  Babylon. 
The  fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah,  like  chapter  fifty-seven, 
seems  to  be  the  funeral  oration  over  that  very  king,  whose 
self-sacrifice,  sufferings  and  final  triumph  are  well  described 
there.  Anyhow,  the  diction  shows  that  it  is  not  the  product 
of  the  same  prophet  as  the  other  chapters.  The  same  is  the 
case  with  the  closing  chapter  of  Isaiah  and  several  passages 
in  other  chapters.  This  forces  us  to  admit  that  we  do  not 
know  who  was  the  author  or  authors  of  Isaiah  xl.  to  Ixvi., 
although  it  is  evident  that  they  were  written  in  the  time 
between  Darius  I.  and  Darius  II.,  between  540  and  510  B.  C, 
in  the  century  prior  to  Ezra  and  the  close  of  the  prophetical 
cycle.  It  seems  from  the  double  tradition  in  the  Talmud  in 
placing  Isaiah  before  Jeremiah,  or  after  Ezekiel,  that  there 
were  two  different  books  of  Isaiah  before  the  compilers  of 
the  Canon,  an  older  and  a  younger  Isaiah,  which  at  a  later 
date  were  connected  in  one  book,  as  was  also  the  case  with 
the  five  chapters  of  Lamentations,  which  are  certainly  not 
the  product  of  one  author,  or  with  the  Book  of  Psalms,  of 
which  we  treat  later  on. 

♦According  to  rabbinical  tradition  (Echah  Rabba)  "  Lamentations" 
was  written  in  the  time  of  this  king,  and  by  Jeremiah ;  hence 
Lament,  iv.  20  refers  to  this  king,  and  there  he  is  called  "  Messiah 
of  the  Lord  ;  "  and  the  terms,  nilkad  bishchitholhom,  rather  point  to 
Jekaniah  than  to  Joshiah,  who  was  slain  and  not  put  in  chains. 


74  The  Later  Prophets. 

The  diction  of  Deutro  Isaiah  is  entirely  different  from  the 
first  in  the  vocabulary,  metaphors,  vocatives,  tone  and  ten- 
dency. He  is  less  poetical  and  more  rhetorical  and  compares 
rather  to  Demosthenes  than  to  Homer.  He  is  most  vehement 
and  agitating,  rousing  to  immediate  action.  His  tropes, 
similes,  apostrophes  or  personifications  are  mostly  taken 
from  the  celestial  sphere,  always  grand  and  universal,  or  from 
the  most  tender  sentiments  of  the  human  sexes,  the  bride,  the 
mother,  the  daughter  of  Zion,  the  confiding  child.  He 
always  speaks  of  Jacob,  Israel,  the  servant  of  the  Lord ; 
never  of  Judah,  Zion,  or  even  Jerusalem,  except  when  he  re- 
fers to  its  ruins  and  desolation.  He  adresses  some  of  his 
messages  to  Cyrus,  whom  he  calls  the  Messiah  of  the  Lord, 
is  less  national  and  much  more  universal  than  any  one 
of  the  older  prophets.  He  is  in  style,  tendency  and 
fundamental  thought  so  entirely  diflferent  from  Isaiah  and 
the  spirit  of  his  time,  that  he  could  not  possibly  be  indenti- 
fied  with  his  older  namesake  and  his  age,  although  that  great 
unknown  may  have  borne  the  same  name  (See  Ezra  viii.  7) 
or  assumed  it.  The  contents  of  his  prophecies  identify 
him  with  the  age  of  Zerubabel. 

9.  The  Prophets  after  Isaiah  to  the  Babylonian  captivity 
are  Nahum,  Habakkuk,  Zephaniah,  Jeremiah,  Obadiah  and 
the  unknown  author  of  the  book  of  Jonah.  The  book  of 
Nahum  (Nachum)  is  before  us  in  three  chapters  (modern 
di\dsion),  seventy- four  verses.  The  name  is  unique,  although 
it  is  evidently  formed  of  Genesis  v.  29  and  became  the  parent 
to  the  later  name  of  Nehemiah  and  Nehuniah.  In  the 
Talmud  the  name  recurs,  and  passages  from  this  prophet  are 
quoted  without  any  reference  to  his  person  or  to  the  place 
"  Elkosh  "  added  to  his  name.  There  was  in  Palestine  a 
place  called  Kephar  Nahum,  or  Capernaum.  This  may  have 
been  the  Elkosh,  called  afterward  after  this  prophet,  but 
there  exists  no  proof  for  it,  no  more  than  that  it  was  the 
El-Kauzah  near  Ramah  in  Naphthali.  He  certainly  was 
a  citizen  of  the  northern  kingdom  whose  downfall  he  had 
witnessed.  The  diction  of  Nahum  is  so  similar  to  that  of 
Isaiah  and  Micah  that  he  may  be  easily  recognized  as  their 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  75 

disciple.     He   prophesied  the   downfall    of    Nineveh    and 
the    Assyrian    Empire,    therefore    his    book    is    a    Massa, 
like    Isaiah's    prophecies    to   the   Gentiles.     His  prophecy 
was    announced    after    the    fall    of    Samaria    (Xahum    i. 
4-6),  and  after  the    retreat    of   Sennacherib    from    Judah 
(ibid.  ii.  1-3).     This  occurred  in  710  B.  C.     Between  this 
and  the  year  706  B.  C.  the  Assyrian  Empire  was  in  a  state 
of  dissolution ;  many  provinces  besides  Media  revolted  ;  Sen- 
nacherib raged  furiously  among  his  own  subjects  till  he  was 
finally  slain  by  his  sons.     This  was  the  time  when  Nahum 
prophesied  the  destruction  of  Nineveh,  which,  however,  did 
not  come  to  pass  till  a  century  later,  in  the  year  612  B.  C, 
although  the  Assyrian  Empire  soon  fell  into  the  hands  of  the 
Babylonian  dynasty.     The  prophet,  still  aglow  with  the  ven- 
geance Avhich  he  thought  God  would  execute  on  Nineveh, 
opens  his  message  thus  :  "  God  is  jealous,  and  the  Lord  re- 
vengeth ;  the  Lord  revengeth  and  is  furious ;  the  Lord  will 
take  vengeance  on  his  adversaries,  and  he  reserveth  wrath  for 
his  enemies."     No  other  prophet  ever  presented  God  in  such 
a  state  of  fury.      As  these  expressions  can  not  be  understood 
to  convey  the  idea  of  what  God  is  or  was  at  that  time,  being 
contrary  to  Moses  in  Exodus  xxxiv.  6,  they  can  only  inform 
us  of  the  prophet's  state  of  mind  at  that  particular  time, 
which  could  have  been  the  case  but  shortly  after  the  fall  of 
Samaria    and  the   invasion  and  downfall  of  Sennacherib 
before  Jerusalem,  all  that  misery  being  still  present  to  the 
prophet's  mind,  with  the  faith  in  God's  justice  firmly  estab- 
lished in  his  soul.      We  may,  therefore,  fix   the    date    of 
Nahum's  prophecy  between  710  and  705  B.  C.  The  book  has 
no  proper  close  and  appears  to  be  the  fragment  of  a  larger 
work. 

10.  Habakkuk,  also  consisting  of  but  three  chapters  and 
fifty-six  verses,  is  in  diction  the  same  as  Nahum.  He  sees  the 
Chaldeans  approach  (i.  6),  speaks  of  their  conquests, 
audacity  and  the  slaughter  of  multitudes  of  human  beings, 
like  the  fish  and  the  creeping  things  abandoned  by  Pro\d- 
dence  (i.  7-17).  He  prophesies,  however,  salvation  and  ref- 
ormation to  Judah,  knows  of  no  destruction  of  Jerusalem 


76  The  Later  Prophets. 

and  no  downfall  of  the  nation  (ii.  3,  4),  and  predicts  the 
downfall  of  the  Chaldean  invader  almost  in  the  same  words 
as  Isaiah  prohesied  the  fall  of  Babel  (xxi.  5-8).  Then  he  de- 
nounces the  moral  corruption  and  the  idolatry  in  the  highest 
places  of  Jehuda's  government  (ii.  9-20).  He  refers  to  the 
crushing  defeat  of  Sennacherib,  his  miserable  end  and  the 
salvation  of  Hezekiah  (iii.  12-14)  as  an  encouraging  j^re- 
cedent  of  God's  help  in  the  time  of  distressing  need,  and 
closes  up  his  inspired  message  with  joyous  hope  and  un- 
shaken trust  in  Providence.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that 
Habakkuk  did  not  refer  to  the  last  invasion  under 
Nebuchadnezzar,  but  to  an  invasion  prior  to  this,  one  which 
did  not  result  in  the  overthrow  of  the  Kingdom  of  Judah. 
This  could  be  either  in  the  time  of  King  Jehoiakin  (2  Kings 
xxiv.),  in  the  fourth  year  of  his  reign,  or  in  the  time  of 
Manassah,  in  the  year  677  B.  C,  when  Esarhaddon,  the 
Asnapper  of  the  Ezra  book  (Ezra  iv.  10),  ])eingking  of  both 
Assyria  and  Babylonia,  invaded  Palestine,  placed  foreign 
colonies  in  Samaria  (2  Kings  xvii.  24),  defeated  the  army  of 
Manassah  and  sent  him  in  chains  a  captive  to  Babel.  The 
latter  date  is  most  likely.  For  Habakkuk  speaks  distinctly 
of  a  prevailing  idolatry  in  Judah  (ii.  19),  which  certainly 
had  no  existence  in  the  land  after  King  Joshiah's  thorough 
reforms,  so  that  both  Kings  and  Chronicles  denounce  the 
successors  of  Joshiah  as  wicked  kings,  but  not  as  idolators, 
nor  does  the  prophet  Jeremiah  speak  of  any  prevailing  idol- 
atry at  any  time  after  the  Joshiah  reformation.  The  visions 
of  Ezekiel  refer  to  the  time  of  Manassah  and  Amon.  It  is 
safe,  therefore,  to  place  the  prophecy  of  Habakkuk  l^etween 
680  and  677  B.  C. 

11.  Zephaniah,  whose  book  consists  also  of  three  chap- 
ters, fifty-three  verses,  informs  us  (i.  1)  that  he  prophesied 
in  the  time  of  King  Joshiah,  after  the  destruction  of  Nineveh 
in  612  B.  C.  (ii.  13-15).  Idolatry  had  disappeared  from 
the  public  places,  only  the  "  remains  "  thereof  among  the 
higher  aristocracy,  including  the  princes  and  the  king's  sons, 
were  left.  The  ex-priests  of  Baal  are  mentioned  by  them 
with  equal  reverence  with  the  Kohanim,  the  priests  of  the 


Pkonaos  to  Holy  Writ.  77 

temple.  "  Upon  the  roofs  "  of  their  private  houses  only  they 
bow  down  to  the  host  of  heaven,  and  in  their  private  parlance 
they  swear  by  the  name  of  God  and  their  chief  idol.  They 
are  the  class  that  deserted  God,  or  that  never  sought  to  know 
him  or  inquire  of  him  (Zephaniah  i.  4-8);  or  the  class 
that  did  not  believe  in  the  prophets  and  would  not  inquire 
of  them.  The  principal  persons  accused  of  wickedness  and 
corruption  are  the  Saarim,  "princes,"  and  the  sons  of  the 
king,  "  that  leap  on  the  threshold,"  are  the  frec^uent  visitors 
in  the  royal  palace  and  "  fill  their  master's  house  with  violence 
and  deceit."  The  master's  house  in  this  case  is  evidently 
the  king's  palace,  as  the  term  master  in  the  Hebrew  is  in  the 
plural  number  (as  in  Genesis  xlii.  30).  All  this  points  to 
the  last  days  of  King  Joshiah,  as  is  evident  from  the  youth 
of  his  immediate  successors  as  well  as  by  a  careful  compar- 
ison of  2  Kings  xxiii.  2(;)-28;  2  Chronicles  xxxvi.  27,  to 
Josephus'  Antiquities  X.  v.  1,  and  Talmud  Shabbath  40  and 
Thanith  22,  which  shows  that  the  king  in  the  last  years  of 
his  government  was  not  as  pious  a  ruler  as  in  former  years. 
Zephaniah  gives  as  the  cause  of  this  change  the  princes  and 
the  sons  of  the  king.  The  last  year  of  Joshiah  being  610 
B.  C,  it  is  evident  that  Zephaniah  prophesied  and  wrote  612 
to  610  B.  C.     He  Avas  a  senior  cotemporary  of  Jeremiah. 

12.  Obadiah,  of  whom  we  possess  one  message  of  twenty- 
one  verses  against  Edom,  is  identified  in  the  Talmud  with 
the  Obadiah  in  the  time  of  Ahab  (1  Kings  xviii.  3),*  Abra- 
ham Ibn  Ezra  raises  objections  to  this  identity,  and  places 
this  Obadiah  in  the  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  which  is  sup- 
ported by  internal  evidence.  For  the  diction  of  Obadiah  is 
not  the  poetic,  artistical  style  of  Isaiah ;  it  is  in  meter  and 
metaphor  much  more  like  Jeremiah.  The  whole  speech 
prophesies  the  downfall  of  Edom  and  the  final  triumph  of 
Mount  Zion.f     It  is  no  longer  Zion  in  its   glory    and   its 

*  He  may  be  identical  with  the  Levite  Obadiah  from  the  fourth 
year  of  Joshiah  (2  Chron.  xxxiv.  12). 

tSee  also  Lamentations  iv.  21,  22,  which  seems  to  be  the  text  to 
Obadiah's  speech. 


78  The  Later  Prophets. 

power — it  is  Mount  Zion,  which  "  will  be  holy  "  when  "  the 
house  of  Jacob  shall  again  possess  their  possession"  (verse 
17).  Edom  is  still  powerful  and  prosperous  (verses  3  and 
4),  it  possesses  yet  its  rock-bound  capital  (verse  3),  has  yet 
its  savants,  sages  and  heroes  (verses  8  and  9).  Evil  is  pre- 
dicted to  the  dominion  of  Esau  :  "  For  thy  violence  against 
thy  brother  Jacob,  shame  shall  cover  thee  and  thou  shalt  be 
cut  off  forever"  (verse  10).  And  now  follows  the  specifica- 
tion of  that  violence  (verses  11-14) : 

"  On  the  day  that  thou  stoodst  on  the  other  side,  on  the 
day  that  strangers  carried  away  captive  his  army,  and  for- 
eigners entered  into  his  gates,  and  cast  lots  over  Jerusalem, 
also  thou  wast  as  any  one  of  them.  But  thou  shouldst  not 
have  looked  on  (pleased)  at  the  day  of  thy  brother,  on  the 
day  that  he  was  delivered  up  to  strangers ;  neither  shouldst 
thou  have  rejoiced  over  the  children  of  Judah  on  the  day  of 
their  destruction ;  nor  shouldst  thou  have  spoken  proudly 
on  the  day  of  distress.  Thou  shouldst  not  have  entered 
into  the  gate  of  my  peoj^le  on  the  day  of  their  calamity ; 
yea,  thou  shouldst  not  have  looked  (pleased)  on  their  afflic- 
tion on  the  dav  of  their  calamitv  ;  nor  have  laid  hands  on 
their  armv  on  the  dav  of  their  calamitv.  Neither  shouldst 
thou  have  stood  in  the  crossway,  to  cut  off  those  of  his  that 
did  escape  ;  neither  shouldst  thou  have  delivered  up  those 
of  his  that  did  remain  on  the  day  of  distress." 

No  such  a  time  of  extreme  calamity  to  Jerusalem  and 
Judah  is  recorded  in  history  prior  to  the  destruction  of  the 
city  by  the  host  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  It  is  evident,  there- 
fore, that  Obadiah  prophesied  the  downfall  of  Edom  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  586  B.  C,  although  the  pro- 
phecy was  fulfilled  four  and  a  half  centuries  later  under 
John  Hyrcan.  It  is  no  less  evident,  as  in  the  case  of  Nahum, 
that  the  prophet  did  speak  shortly  after  the  catastrophe,  as 
he  knew  all  the  particulars  of  Edom's  wrongs  perpetrated 
on  Jerusalem  and  Judah  in  that  catastrophe. 

13.  Jeremiah,  son  of  Hilkiah,  a  priest  from  the  priestly 
city  of  Anatoth,  in  Benjamin,  northwest  of  Jerusalem  and 
within  ten  miles  of  it,  was  the  inspired  patriot  of  a  heroic 


pRONAos  TO  Holy  Writ.  79 

age.  From  the  Tigris  to  the  Nile  all  countries  were  in  a 
state  of  turmoil  and  incessant  warfare — offensive  and  defen- 
sive. Palestine  and  Phoenicia  were  the  special  objects  of 
contention  between  the  two  powers,  Egypt  on  the  west  and 
Babylon-Assyria  on  the  east.  Independence  of  any  nation- 
ality between  these  two  countries  had  become  impossible ; 
every  one  of  them  had  to  submit,  either  to  Egypt  or  to 
Babylonia.  The  land  of  Judah,  from  and  after  the  capture 
of  King  Manassah,  had  been  subject  to  the  eastern  empire, 
and  remained  in  this  state  of  dependency,  also,  after  the 
restoration  of  Manassah,  under  Amon  and  Joshiah,  with 
whose  death  the  active  hostilities  of  those  two  empires  re- 
opened, and  ended  for  Judah  with  the  memorable  catastrophe 
of  Jerusalem's  destruction  and  Judah's  exile  to  Babylonia, 
675-586  B.  C.  Jeremiah's  prophecies  began  with  the  thir- 
teenth year  of  the  reign  of  Joshiah,  which  was  631  or  630 
B.  C. ;  the  year  can  not  be  exactly  fixed.  The  first  reforms 
of  Joshiah  occurred  (2  Chronicles  xxxiv.  3)  in  the  twelfth 
year  of  that  king's  reign,  hence,  simultaneously  with  Jere- 
miah's first  prophetical  speeches.  Joshiah's  first  reforms 
could  naturally  extend  only  to  Jerusalem,  and  culminated 
in  the  renovation  of  the  temple,  and  the  finding  of  the  origi- 
nal copy  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  (2  Chronicles  xxxiv. 
14) ;  and  then  his  second  reforms,  in  the  eighteenth  year  of 
his  reign,  or  shortly  thereafter,  extended  to  the  country  and 
the  territory  of  the  Kingdom  of  Israel.  This  invasion  of 
the  northern  kingdom  could  certainly  not  have  occurred  as 
long  as  Assyria  was  in  its  full  power ;  hence  it  must  be 
placed  after  the  fifteenth  year  of  Joshiah's  reign,  when 
Nabopolassar  rebelled  against  the  King  of  Assyria,  and 
made  himself  King  of  Babylon.  This  again  culminated  in 
his  third  reform,  the  great  Passover  celebration,  in  which  it 
is  maintained  (2  Kings  xxiii.  21 ;  2  Chronicles  xxxv.  18) 
all  Judah,  the  remaining  multitude  of  Israel  and  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Jerusalem  took  part.  Jeremiah's  name  is  not  men- 
tioned in  connection  with  any  of  these  reforms,  nor  does  he 
anywhere  identify  himself  with  them.  When  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant  was  found  in  the  temple  the  king  inquired  of  the 


80  The  Later  Pkophets. 

prophetess  Huldah,  and  not  of  Jeremiah,  whether  the  punish- 
ment predicted  in  it  would  be  inflicted  on  Judah;  hence 
Jeremiah's  authority  was  not  yet  established.  He  must 
have  preached  for  some  time  in  Anatoth  (Jeremiah  xi.  21, 
22;  xii.  5,  6)  before  he  went  to  Jerusalem  (ibid.  ii.  2),  and 
his  first  speech  there  (ii.  2  to  iii.  5)  was  evidently  made  after 
the  death  of  Joshiah  (ii.  17,  86).  It  appears,  therefore,  cer- 
tain that  the  reform  of  King  Joshiah  and  the  discovery  of 
the  original  Book  of  the  Covenant  fired  the  soul  of  that 
young  priest  to  prophetical  inspiration,  and  he  preached  and 
prophesied  entirely  in  the  spirit  of  that  reformation  and  on 
the  principles  of  that  Book  of  the  Covenant,  without  being 
an  acknowledged  authority  among  the  numerous  true  and 
false  prophets  of  those  days.*  His  authority  grew  after  the 
death  of  Joshiah,  when  the  reaction  set  in,  and  corruption 
and  demoralization  increased  with  the  growing  power  of  the 
foreign  potentate,  as  patriotism,  self-reliance  and  faith  in 
Providence  decreased.  It  seems  he  was  not  generally  ac- 
knowledged as  a  true  prophet  prior  to  the  catastrophe,  when 
his  predictions  had  been  so  terribly  fulfilled.  Then,  and 
perhaps  as  late  as  550  B.  C.  (Jere.  Iii.  32),  his  manuscripts 
Avere  collected  and  connected  in  a  Book  of  Jeremiah.  The 
compiler  may  have  been  Baruch,  the  scribe  of  Jeremiah,  or 
the  liberated  King  of  Judah  himself.  His  prophecies  became 
then  the  pillar  of  hope  to  the  exiled  (2  Chronicles  xxxvi. 
21,  22;  Daniel  ix.  2),  and  roused  that  hopeful  and  joyful 
enthusiasm  which  re-echoes  in  the  Deutro-Isaiah,  Haggai, 
Zachariah,  Zerubabel  and  Joshiah,  the  high  priest. 

14.  The  Book  of  Jeremiah  is  before  us  in  fifty-two  chap- 
ters (modern  division),  thirty-one  Sedarim  (ancient  divis- 

*The  supposition  that  then  and  there  Deuteronomy  was  forged 
upon  the  name  of  Moses  is  as  contrary  to  the  historical  sources, 
which  plainly  and  repeatedly  state,  that  it  was  the  "  Book  of  the 
Covenant"  which  was  found  in  the  sanctuary,  as  is  that  other 
hypothesis  which  gives  to  Jeremiah  the  authorship  of  Deuter- 
onomy ;  both  are  the  illegitimate  products  of  those  who  were  mis- 
guided by  the  prior  hypothesis,  that  Moses  could  not  be  the  author 
of  the  Pentateuch. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  81 

ion),  1,365  verses,  the  middle  of  which  is  xxviii.  11.  The 
fifty-first  chapter  closes  :  ''  Till  here  are  the  words  of  Jere- 
miah," while  the  fifty-second  chapter  is  an  addendum,  part 
of  which  is  taken  literally  from  the  closing  chapters  of 
Kings,  omitting  the  story  of  Gedaliah,  which  is  narrated  at 
length  in  Jeremiah  xli.  That  it  was  taken  from  Kings,  and 
not  vice  versa,  is  proved  by  the  corrections  in  Jeremiah.  But 
the  closing  passage  concerning  the  release  of  King  Jehoiachin 
from  prison  was  copied  from  Jeremiah  into  Kings.  This 
seems  to  confirm  the  hypothesis  that  this  King  was  the 
compiler  of  the  Jeremiah  prophecies.  The  body  of  the  book 
contains  three  elements,  viz.,  admonitions,  predictions  and 
cotemporary  history.  The  admonitions  are  all  of  the  same 
character,  the  people,  priests,  princes  and  kings  are  forcibly 
reminded  to  submit  to  the  Thorah,  the  law  of  God,  and  be 
saved  in  the  coming  catastrophe,  or  disobey  and  perish 
under  the  coming  wrath.  The  prophet  is  fully  convinced 
that  the  punishment  is  sure  to  come.  His  predictions  are 
no  less  categoric.  He  spoke  invariably  the  same  :  "  You 
submit  to  the  dominion  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  save  your 
lives,  country,  city  and  temple  from  destruction,  or  you 
resist  and  lose  everything.  Babel  will  fall  and  Babylonia 
will  be  dissolved.  Egypt  also  will  perish ;  so  will  Philistia, 
Tyre  and  Zidon,  Moab,  Ammon,  Edom  and  Damascus. 
Then  Judah  and  Israel  may  regain  their  independence, 
former  splendor  and  power,  if  you  only  hold  fast  to  your 
God  and  his  Thorah,  adhere  to  your  cause  and  the  divine 
covenant.  But  even  if  you  remain  rebellious  and  lose  every- 
thing, the  nation  and  its  cause  will  not  perish.  After  seventy 
years  your  offspring  will  return  to  their  country  and  con- 
tinue the  preservation  of  your  nationality  and  your  cause 
as  better  men  and  women  than  their  rebellious  ancestors." 
In  the  midst  of  all  distress  and  calamity  Jeremiah  ceased 
not  to  predict  a  gracious  future  for  coming  generations  in 
Israel,  which  will  outlive  all  its  mighty  adversaries  ;  and  in 
all  that,  in  the  threatened  punishment  and  promising  future, 
Jeremiah  only  enlarged  on  the  predictions  of  Moses  (Deut. 
xxviii.  to  xxxii.  and  Leviticus  xxvi.),  whose  words,  phrases, 


82  The  Later  Prophets. 

doctrines  and  precepts  fall  continually  from  the  lips  of 
Jeremiah.  His  diction  and  rhythm  are  original,  having 
nothing  in  common  with  the  poetical  sublimity,  beauty  and 
polish  of  the  Isaiah  period,  or  with  the  Samuel  school. 
Speaking  continually  of  facts  which  exist  or  are  to  come, 
and  hurried  by  a  rush  of  exciting  events  and  calamitous  and 
terror-striking  emergencies,  Jeremiah  speaks  evidently  with- 
out bestowing  any  care  on  the  form,  "  as  God  put  it  into  his 
mouth,"  yet  at  times  loftily  poetical.  He  quotes  from 
older  prophets  or  imitates  frequently  more  ancient  phrases, 
as  we  shall  show  elsewhere.  Still,  in  the  main  he  speaks 
like  a  disciple  of  Moses,  without,  however,  the  brevity  and 
conciseness  of  Moses,  so  that  Rabbi  Judan  ben  Simon  (in 
Pesikta  Rabbathi)  could  maintain  Jeremiah  was  a  prophet 
like  Moses  in  admonitions,  and  some  critics  suspect  him  to 
be  the  author  of  Deuteronomy,  although  it  is  of  an  entirely 
different  spirit,  form,  contents  and  diction,  except  perhaps 
Deuter.  xxviii. ;  and  this  is  too  frequently  used  by  Ezekiel  to 
be  the  work  of  Jeremiah. 

15.  The  most  remarkable  imitation  occurs  in  Jeremiah 
xlix.  7-22,  where  the  prophecy  of  Obadiah  is  transcribed 
and  enlarged  upon.  It  can  not  well  be  maintained  that  Oba- 
diah imitated  Jeremiah,  for  if  so,  his  one-chapter  speech 
would  certainly  not  have  been  accepted  among  the  minor 
prophets  compiled  some  time  after  the  Jeremiah  book.  Be- 
sides, all  the  prophecies  to  the  Gentiles  from  Jeremiah  xlvi. 
to  1.  are  of  a  different  cast.  They  are  more  compact,  betray 
less  excitement,  and  are  full  of  consolation  to  Israel  and 
Judah.  However,  being  in  tone  and  spirit  of  the  same  cast 
with  his  other  speeches,  it  proves  only  that  they  were  writ- 
ten after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  after  the  prophet's  re- 
turn from  Egypt,  when  his  mind  was  calmer  than  it  was  dur- 
ing the  war,  and,  all  being  lost,  he  had  retired  from  public 
life  (except  chapter  li.,  which  he  wrote  in  the  fourth  year  of 
Zedekiah),  to  write  his  last  prophecies  in  some  retired  and 
isolated  spot,  far  away  from  the  turmoils  of  life.  Passages 
like  chapter  x.,  supposed  to  be  imitations  of  Deutro-Isaiah, 
are  certainly  original  with  Jeremiah  and  imitated  by  the 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  83 

Deutro-Isaiah,  who  succeeded  him  in  time.  The  variations 
in  the  Greek  translation  emhodied  in  the  Septuagint  prove 
nothing- against  the  authenticity  of  the  Massoretic  text,  as 
the  Septuagint  was  several  times  remanipulated,  and  could 
also  be  accounted  for  by  the  presumption  that  the  translator 
had  before  him  the  defective  copy  of  an  unknown  and  unau- 
thorized compiler.  It  is,  therefore,  safe  to  maintain  that 
Jeremiah  wrote  and  spoke  between  630  and  580  B.  C,  and 
his  productions  were  compiled  550  B.  C.  in  one  volume,  as 
is  now  before  us  in  the  Book  of  Jeremiah.  It  is  evident 
from  the  numerous  Massoretic  annotations  in  this  book, 
more  than  in  any  other,  that  nothing  was  changed  in  the 
original  manuscripts  by  the  compiler.  The  exactness  and 
truth,  also,  of  the  contemporary  history  recorded  in  the 
book  testify  to  its  authenticity. 

16.  The  Book  of  Jonah  is  before  us  in  four  chapters  (mod- 
ern division),  forty-eight  verses.  Jonah  (Yonah),  son  of 
Amithai,  is  the  name  of  a  prophet  from  Gath-Hepher,  in 
Zebulon,  who  flourished  in  the  earlier  days  of  Jeroboam  II., 
812  B.  C,  and  prophesied  the  victories  which  this  king 
achieved  (2  Kings  xiv.  25).  It  is  possible  enough  that  this 
prophet  went  on  a  divine  mission  from  Samaria  to  Nineveh, 
preached  there  repentance  and  moved  the  heathen  (and 
Hebrew  ?)  population  of  that  ancient  capital  to  penance  and 
reformation,  and  that  this  story  was  preserved  traditionally 
in  Israel,  especially  because  at  home  the  prophet  did  not 
succeed  in  the  same  kind  of  work.  But  it  is  not  probable 
that  the  same  prophet  was  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Jonah. 
It  contains  terms  and  phrases  of  much  later  Hebrew.  The 
prayer  of  Jonah  in  chapter  ii.  is  mostly  an  imitation  of  other 
Bible  passages.*  The  idea  of  a  prophet  attempting  to 
escape  from  before  God  is  taken  from  Jeremiah,  who  assid- 
uously attempted  not  to  prophesy  and  to  speak  in  the  name 
of  God,  and  did  not  succeed  (Jeremiah  xx.  7-18) ;  the  idea 
is  allegorized  in  Jonah,  and  the  irresistible  force  in  the-  soul 

*The  whale  is  not  mentioned  in  the  original,  it  is  a  "  large  fish," 
of  which  the  Septuagint  and  Josephus  made  a  whale. 


84  The  Later  Prophets. 

of  Jeremiah,  compelling  him  to  speak,  is  represented  here 
by  the  storm  and  the  fish  which  swallows  Jonah.  Also  the 
idea  that  God  would  forgive  the  penitent  sinners,  the  pun- 
ishment would  not  overtake  them,  and  the  prophet  would 
appear  a  false  prophet,  is  outlined  in  Jeremiah  (xxviii.  6-9). 
So  is  Jonah  iv.  3,  8  almost  literally  from  Jeremiah,  so  that 
there  can  be  hardly  any  doubt  left  that  the  Book  of  Jonah 
was  written  after  Jeremiah.  Other  ideas  contained  in  this 
book  point  distinctly  to  the  cosmopolitan  time  which  had 
its  startin  the  exile.  God  cares  also  for  the  sinful  heathens, 
and  extends  his  mercy  to  them.  God's  mercy  extends  even 
to  the  cattle  of  Nineveh.  God  forgives  the  penitent  without 
any  sacrifices  or  intercession.  The  heathens  are  even  better 
than  the  Israelites  who  would  not  listen  to  the  admonitions 
of  their  prophets.  The  office  of  the  prophet  is  not  to  work 
miracles  and  to  prophesy ;  it  is  to  announce  the  will  of  God 
to  his  erring  children.  Conceptions  like  these  will  fit  only 
into  that  century,  and  are  worthy  of  the  prophet  in  whatever 
form  he  expressed  them — in  legend,  allegory,  myth  or  fable. 
The  book  could  not  have  been  written  much  later,  as  it  was 
accepted  in  the  Propheticel  canon,  and  its  author  constantly 
uses  the  tetragrammaton.  It  was  evidently  not  written  after 
the  close  of  the  prophetical  era.  It  is  safe,  therefore,  to 
maintain  that  the  Book  of  Jonah  was  written  about  540  B.  C. 
Its  pseudonymous  author  elaborating  the  Jonah  tradi- 
tion, must  have  been  one  of  the  Hebrew  exiles  in  Assyria,  as 
his  diction  is  foreign,  he  knows  more  of  Nineveh  than  of  Pal- 
estine, and  calls  himself  an  Ibri,  a  Hebrew,  as  none  either 
in  Judah  or  in  Israel  called  himself.  It  is  evident  from  Eze- 
kiel  that  in  his  time  a  great  revival  of  faith  took  place 
among  the  Assyrian  exiles.  It  was  to  them  that  Jonah 
preached  this  divine  message  on  the  efficacy  of  repentance, 
as  a  continuation  of  Ezekiel's  message  to  them.  (See  Eze- 
kiel  XX.) 

17.  Ezekiel  (Yechezkel),  the  son  of  Busi,  a  priest  dwelling 
in  a  colony  of  the  exiles  on  the  Chebar  River,  east  of  the 
Euphrates,  then  belonging  to  the  land  of  the  Chaldeans,  was 
the  only  prophet  of  the  period  of  the  Babylonian  exile.    His 


Pkonaos  tu  Holy  Wkit.  85 

prophecies  were  collected  and  compiled  in  one  book  by  the 
Men  of  the  Great  Synod,  a  century  or  longer  after  his  demise. 
For  this  Synod  was  instituted  by  Ezra  about  445  B.  C,  con- 
tinued its  existence  to  at  least  300  B.  C,  as  Simeon  the  Just, 
who  died  292  B.  C,  was  its  last  President.  If  Ezekiel  was 
thirty  years  old  in  the  fifth  year  of  King  Jehoiachin's  cap- 
tivity (Ezekiel  i.  1,  2),  592  B.  C.  and  lived  forty  years  there- 
after, he  must  have  died  552  B.  C.  These  dates,  however, 
are  uncertain.  The  prophet  may  have  had  this  vision  on 
Chebar  River  after  he  had  lived  thirty  years  in  that  colony, 
may  have  prophesied  prior  to  that  in  the  twenty-seventh  year 
of  his  stay  among  the  exiles  ( Ezekiel  xxix.  17),  and  may  have 
been  well  advanced  in  age  when  he  had  that  great  vision  of 
the  throne  of  God,  by  which  he  considered  himself  initiated 
in  the  highest  prophetical  degree.  The  fourteenth  year  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (Ezekiel  xi.  1)  may  have  been 
his  last  prophecy,  and  mark,  also,  the  last  year  of  his  life,  572 
B.  C'  This  date  seems  to  be  correct,  for  he  says  nothing  of 
the  liberation  of  King  Jehoiachin,  which  occurred  about  561 
B.  C,  and  produced  a  thorough  change  in  the  condition  of 
the  exiles,  one  which  the  patriotic  prophet  could  not  possibly 
leave  unnoticed.  He  speaks  of  no  king  of  Babylon  besides 
Nebuchadnezzar,  refers  to  nothing  which  transpired  in  the 
last  decade  of  this  king's  reign,  and  sees  his  own  people  only 
in  a  state  of  despair,  as  they  must  have  been  in  the  decades 
immediately  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Therefore,  if 
we  presume  that  Ezekiel  lived  his  threescore  and  ten,  it  is 
safe  to  place  him  from  640  to  572  B.  C.  He  migrated,  per- 
haps voluntarily,  to  the  Chebar  River  in  the  eighteenth  year 
of  King  Joshiah,  and  in  the  thirtieth  year  of  his  abode 
there,  which  is  in  the  fifth  year  of  King  Jehoiachin's  captiv- 
ity (see  Rashi  to  Ezekiel  i.  2),  he  began  his  prophetical  ca- 
reer, about  592  B.  C,  when  about  forty-four  years  old.* 

♦According  to  Seder  Olam  (Rashi  to  Ezekiel)  the  eighteenth  year 
of  King  Joshiah  was  the  jubilee  year,  therefore  Ezekiel  dates  from 
that  year.  He  mentions  the  jubilee  year  also  in  chapter  xlvi. 
7,  as  Tmn  nJK'  exactly  in  the  sense  of  Moses. 


86  The  Later  Prophets. 

18.  The  book  of  Ezekiel  is  before  us  in  forty-eight  chap- 
ters (modern  division),  twenty-nine  Sedarim  (ancient  divis- 
ion), 1,273  verses,  the  middle  of  which  is  xxvi.  10.  Dates 
are  at  the  head  of  some  chapters  from  the  fifth  to  the  twenty- 
fifth  year  of  the  captivity  of  King  Jehoiakim.  In  diction 
and  the  main  subjects  of  prophecy  it  is  like  the  Book  of 
Jeremiah,  with  some  Aramisms  which  betray  its  author's 
residence  in  the  land  of  the  Chaldeans.  The  latter  is  also 
the  case  with  the  allegories  of  his  visions,  especially  his 
descriptions  of  the  throne  of  God,  which,  in  addition  to  the 
original  (Isaiah  vi.),  are  reflexes  of  Chaldean  astrological 
conceptions.  He  is  unlike  Jeremiah  in  his  originality  ;  be- 
sides Moses,  he  imitates  none.  He  wrote  like  one  Avho  knew 
no  literature  besides  the  books  of  Moses.  He  knows  Noah, 
Job  and  Daniel  as  righteous  men  (xiv.  13,  19),  the  latter 
also  as  a  wise  man  (xxviii.  3),  but  betrays  no  knowledge  of 
a  book  of  either  Job  or  Daniel.  He  elaborates  the  same 
ideas  (ii.  and  iii.  8-10)  with  Jeremiah  i.  on  entering  the 
prophetical  office  and  his  unwillingness  to  prophesy  (iii. 
11-15)  like  Jeremiah,  but  shows  no  further  acquaintance 
with  his  older  cotemporary's  literary  productions.  He  refers 
(vi.  5)  to  King  Joshiah's  work  at  the  altar  of  Beth-El,  from 
memory,  it  appears.  Excejjt  his  last  prophecy  on  Seir  (xxxv.), 
which  sounds  like  Jeremiah's  and  Obadiah's  in  the  main,  he 
evinces  no  knowledge  of  any  literature  except  the  books  of 
Moses.  He  not  only  reproduces  largely  terms,  phrases  and 
sentences  peculiar  to  Moses,  but  amplifies  laws  of  Moses  and 
expounds  them  at  length  in  the  very  phraseology  of  Moses. 
So,  for  instance,  iii.  16-21,  he  advances  the  idea  of  the 
Zopheh^s,  or  prophet's  responsibility  for  the  well-being  of  the 
congregation,  which  is  an  amplification  of  Deuteronomy 
xiii.  2-6  and  xviii.  15-22.  Again,  Ezekiel  xiv.  and  xviii.  are 
amplifications  of  Deuteronomy  xxiv.  16,  in  connection  with 
Exodus  xxxiv.  5-7  and  Numbers  xiv.  19-20.  Again,  Ezekiel 
xxxvi.  is  a  reproduction  of  the  above  chapters,  and  all  four 
of  them  are  completely  in  the  phraseology  of  Moses.  It 
appears  that  the  prophet,  far  away  from  his  home,  had  no 
other  literature  of  Israel  at  his  command.     His  thorough 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  87 

knowledge,  however,  of  the  nations  from  Etliiopia  to  the 
Caspian  Sea  and  the  Hindus  River,  their  history,  political 
conditions,  industries,  commerce  and  products  of  the  soil 
(for  instance,  chapters  xxvii.  and  xxviii.)  is  plain  evidence 
of  his  vast  information  and  access  to  the  world's  literature, 
such  as  no  other  writer  of  those  days  does  show,  not  even 
Herodotus  and  Xenophon  in  the  century  after  Ezekiel. 
Judging  Ezekiel  from  the  poetical  standpoint  his  affluence 
of  words  and  metaphors  is  admirable.  His  allegories  and 
symbols  are  frequently  most  sublime,  although  in  several 
instances  grotesque  and  even  coarse,  as  in  chapter  iv.  He 
speaks,  more  than  any  other  of  the  prophets,  like  a  teacher 
rather  than  an  orator,  so  that  it  seems  that  teaching  was  his 
profession  in  the  colony.  Judging  him  from  the  ethical  and 
national  standpoint,  Ezekiel  occupies  the  highest  position 
among  the  great  prophets.  Among  a  people  inclined  to 
Paganism,  with  causes  then  deemed  sufficient  to  doubt  their 
God's  power  and  willingness  to  save  them,  and,  stunned  by  the 
nation's  downfall,  given  to  despair,  ready  to  yield  to  the 
victor's  faith  and  wisdom,  Ezekiel  rises  like  a  pillar  of  fire 
on  a  dark  night,  a  mighty  and  successful  pleader  of  Israel's 
imperishable  cause  and  God's  inviolable  promises,  a  terror 
to  the  wicked  and  wickedness,  a  reviving  sunshine  and 
refreshing  shower  to  the  moral  sentiments,  the  national  faith 
and  hope,  and  he  did  resurrect  the  dead  in  the  valley  of 
Dura.  In  that  chapter  (xxxvii.)  he  merely  describes  his 
mission  and  his  work. 

19.  The  book  of  Ezekiel  contains  three  distinct  parts : 
(1)  from  chapters  i.  to  xxiv. ;  (2)  chapters  xxv.  to  xxxix.  ; 
and  (3)  from  chapters  xxxix.  to  xlviii.  In  the  first  part  he 
prophesies,  in  substance  the  same  as  Jeremiah,  the  approach- 
ing end  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  either  by  submission  to 
Nebuchadnezzar  or  b}'  utter  destruction  and  exile,  always 
maintaining  that  the  end  is  not  the  final  end,  but  is  to  lead 
to  a  higher  state  of  national  life  and  prosperity  after  the 
sins  shall  be  expiated  by  the  national  sufferings ;  also  always 
maintaining  that  the  righteovis  and  the  penitent  shall  not 
perish  in  the  catastrophe.      In  the  second  part  he  is  the 


88  The  Later  Prophets. 

prophet  of  consolation ;  the  trumpet  of  resurrection,  the 
comforter  and  harbinger  of  glad  tidings  to  his  people,  the 
pleader  of  Israel  and  the  advocate  of  God's  tender  mercies. 
All  his  messages  to  the  Gentiles,  including  the  "  Gog  "  pro- 
phecies in  chapters  thirty-eight  and  thirty-nine,  have  the 
same  object  in  view  as  with  Jeremiah.  They  are  to  announce 
that  all  those  nations  and  governments,  however  mighty  and 
vigorous,  will  perish,  and  Israel  in  consequence  of  the  cove- 
nant will  outlive  them  ;  that  the  name  of  God  be  j)roclaimed 
and  hallowed  by  them.*  A  special  feature  of  Ezekiel's  work 
is  his  teaching  among  the  exiled  Israelites  from  the  Northern 
kingdom.  It  seems  that  the  Thel  Abib  colony  was  com- 
posed of  the  older  Assyrian  exiles  from  the  Kingdom  of 
Israel  and  the  later  emigrants  from  the  Kingdom  of  Judah. 
The  elders  of  Israel,  like  the  elders  of  Judah,  come  to  the 
prophet  to  seek  instruction  (Ezekiel  xiii.  24;  xx.  1).  He 
announces  to  them  the  divine  oracles,  pleads  their  cause, 
prophesies  salvation  to  them,  predicts  their  reunion  with 
Judah,  sees  the  land  of  Israel  repopulated  and  prosperous 
(chapter  thirty-six)  and  knows  of  no  distinction  any  longer 
between  the  two  kingdoms  (chapter  thirty-seven).  In  the 
third  part,  Ezekiel  lays  down  a  plan  for  a  new  temple, 
service,  city  and  geographical  division  of  the  whole  land  of 
Palestine,  for  the  twelve  tribes,  retaining  the  sacrificial  polity 
and  Levitical  priesthood  of  Moses  with  some  minor  changes, 
and  changing  entirely  the  old  division  of  the  land.f  This 
document  and,  it  appears,  the  whole  of  Ezekiel  was  un- 
known to  Zerubabel,  and  it  appears  also  to  Ezra,  as  none  of 
those  provisions  were  adopted  in  the  second  temple  and 
commonwealth.     Like  other  prophets,   Ezekiel's  authority 


*  The  "  Gog  "  prophecy  is  in  substance  no  more  than  an  amplifica- 
tion of  Jeremiah  xxx.  10,  11,  whether  he  did  or  did  not  think  of  the 
Scythians. 

+  It  did  not  appear  to  Ezekiel  or  to  the  other  prophets  that  the 
Mosaic  provisions  for  the  sacrificial  polity  were  originally  intended 
to  be  unalterable,  or  else  he  could  not  have  proposed  changes  as 
he  did. 


Pkonaos  to  Holy  Writ.  89 

during  his  lifetime  was  but  local ;  he  was  one  among  many 
cotemporary  prophets  (Ezekiel  xiii.  and  xx.  25).  It  was 
difficult  to  distinguish  the  true  from  the  false  prophet.  In 
his  locality,  it  appears  from  the  general  tone  of  his  speeches, 
and  especially  from  xii.  27  and  xxi.  5,  he  met  with  many 
unbelievers.  Besides,  Ezekiel  never  left  the  colony,  and 
this  was  too  far  from  Babel  to  be  known  there.  His  name 
is  not  mentioned  in  any  other  book  besides  his  own.  So  it 
appears  certain  that  the  prophecies  of  Ezekiel  were  not 
generally  known  before  the  Men  of  the  Great  Synod,  per- 
haps after  the  death  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  collected  and 
compiled  the  manuscripts  in  the  present  book.  Centuries 
later,  it  is  reported  in  the  Talmud  (Shabbath  lob),  the 
learned  men  wanted  to  take  the  Book  of  Ezekiel  out  of  the 
Canon,  "  Because  his  words  contradict  the  words  of  the 
Thorah."  *  This  contradiction  can  refer  to  Ezekiel's  third 
part  only,  as  in  all  his  other  prophecies  he  re-echoes  Moses, 
and  often  literally.  Ezekiel's  temple,  city  and  division  of 
the  land  were  intended  for  the  reunited  twelve  tribes,  which 
did  not  came  to  pass  prior  to  the  victories  of  Alexander 
the  Great. 

20.  Three  prophets  of  whom  literary  productions  are  extant 
appear  in  Israel's  history  after  the  return  from  the  Babylon- 
ian captivity,  Haggai,  Zechariah  and  Malachi.  Their  com- 
mon sepulcher  on  Mount  Olivet,  near  Jerusalem,  is  yet 
venerated  by  the  men  of  the  three  monotheistic  religions. 
With  these  three  hesperi  closes  the  prophetical  Canon,  and 
also  the  code  of  the  Twelve  Minor  Prophets,  the  fourth  book 
of  Later  Prophets,  which  contains  the  prophecies  of  twelve 
prophets,  divided,  like  Isaiah,  into  sixty-six  chapters,  one 
thousand  and  fifty  verses.  The  Talmudical  tradition  reports 
many  prophets  coming  back  from  Babylonia  with  Zerubabel 
and  with  Ezra,  who  were  members  of  the  Great  Synod.  Pro- 
phets are  mentioned  also  in  Nehemiah,  together  with  the 

*  One  Hananiah  ben  Hezekiah  saved  the  book  and  the  honor  of 
the  prophet. 


90  The  Later  Prophets. 

prophetess  Noadiah  (vi.  7,  14)*.  Besides  those  three  and 
this  prophetess,  none  is  mentioned  by  name  in  Scriptures. 
In  the  historical  sources  Haggai  and  Zechariah  only  are 
named  (Ezra  v.  1).  Malachi  appears  nowhere  outside  of 
his  book.  The  Talmudical  tradition,  therefore,  reports  Mal- 
achi as  an  appellative,  and  his  proper  name  as  Mordechai, 
or  Ezra  (Meguillah  15),  the  latter  being  generally  accepted. f 
It  is  maintained,  therefore,  that  with  Malachi  or  Ezra  closes 
the  prophetical  millennium  beginning  with  Moses,  in  round 
numbers  1450-450  B.  C.  This  "  Twelve  Books,"  according 
to  the  Talmudical  tradition,  being  written,  or  rather  com- 
piled, in  its  present  form  by  the  Great  Synod,  the  prophet- 
ical Canon  could  not  have  been  completed  before  the  fourth 
century  B.  C. 

21.  The  Book  of  Haggai  (Chaggai),  consisting  of  two 
chapters,  thirty-eight  verses,  is  dated  from  the  sec  ond  year 
of  Darius  II.,  in  the  sixth  month  of  that  year,  the  three 
oracles  respectively  the  1st,  21st,  and  24th  days  of  that 
month,  519  B.  C.  He  mentions  the  fact,  that  the  twenty- 
fourth  day  of  the  ninth  month,  the  same  year,  building  on 
the  temple  was  resumed  (ii.  18).  All  his  oracles  except  one 
passage  are  admonitions  to  Zerubabel  and  Joshua  the  high 
priest  to  resume  work  on  the  temple  before  permission  was 
given  by  Darius  II.  One  passage  (ii.  11-13),  addressed  to 
the  priests,  is  casuistic,  and  sounds  like  similar  passages  in 
Zendavesta.     This  may  be  the  reason  that  Haggai  has  be- 

*  Only  four  prophetesses  are  named  in  Scriptures,  Miriam,  De- 
borah, Huldah  and  Noadiah.  They  belong  to  four  periods  of  his- 
tor)',  and  are  intended  to  suggest  the  principle  that  in  the  highest 
spiritual  sphere  also  woman  always  was  the  equal  of  man. 

iZebachim  62a  it  is  stated  from  Mishnath  Rabbi  Eliezer  ben  Ja- 
cob that  three  prophets  came  up  with  them  from  Babylon,  one  to 
testify  to  the  exact  spot  where  the  altar  was,  another  to  testify 
that  sacrifices  might  be  offered  up  before  the  temple  was  built, 
and  a  third  one  to  sanction  the  re-writing  of  the  Thorah  in  the 
Assyrian  characters  (as  it  now  is).  No  names  are  given  there,  al- 
though it  appears  that  the  two  former  were  Haggai  and  Zecha- 
riah and  the  latter  Malachi  or  Ezra  himself. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  91 

come  so  prominent  in  the  Talmudical  traditions,  more  so 
than  his  contemporaries  (Yebamoth  16;  Kiddushin  42). 
There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  literal  authenticity  of  this 
book,  although  its  diction,  rhythm  and  prophetic  address 
distinguish  its  author  not  from  the  prophets  of  the  previous 
century. 

22.  The  Book  of  Zechariah  (Zecharyah)  is  before  us  in 
fourteen  chapters,  211  verses.  He  was  the  son  of  Berechiah. 
from  the  descendants  of  Eddo,  the  prophet.  Eddo  flourished 
in  the  time  of  the  first  Jeroboam  and  his  son,  Abiah,  in  the 
tenth  century  B.  C,  and  could  not  be  the  grandfather  of 
Zechariah  in  the  sixth  century,  hence  we  understand  that 
Eddo  was  the  ancestor  by  whom  his  family  was  distin- 
guished. It  was  deemed  necessary  to  add  to  the  prophet's 
name,  "  Son  of  Eddo,  the  prophet,"  because  there  was 
another  Zechariah,  son  of  Berechiah  (Isaiah  viii.),  who  was 
also  a  prophet  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  5)  in  the  time  of  King  Uzziah, 
evidently  an  older  contemporary  of  Isaiah.  Zechariah 
opens  his  prophetical  career  in  the  same  year,  and  but  three 
months  later  than  Haggai,  continues  the  same  on  the 
twenty-fourth  day  of  the  eleventh  month  (i.  7)  and  then 
gives  us  no  other  date  until  vii.  1,  which  is  dated  the  fourth 
month  of  the  fourth  year  of  Darius,  although  chapter  vii. 
was  certainly  written  after  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple, 
which  occurred  515  B.  C.  Thus  we  know  that  his  prophetical 
time  was  but  five  years,  519  to  515  B.  C.  The  substance  of 
his  oracles  is  the  same  as  Haggai's,  encouraging  Zerubabel, 
Joshua  and  the  people  to  complete  the  sacred  structure. 
There  is  also  a  piece  of  casuistry  in  Zechariah  (vii.  and  viii.) 
referring  to  the  abolition  of  the  four  national  fasts.  Zecha- 
riah is  more  eloquent  and  poetical  than  his  cotemporary. 
He  marks  the  decadence  of  prophecy  into  the  apocalyptic 
visions.  He  is  frequently  visited  and  spoken  to  by  angels, 
sees  allegoric  visions  which  represent  no  truths  in  them- 
selves and  become  instructive  by  the  explanations  only. 
With  him  Satan  appears  for  the  first  time  as  a  figure  of 
prophetical  vision.  The  same  decadence  of  the  prophetical 
power  as  observable  from  Jeremiah  to  Ezekiel  is  observable 


92  The  Later  Prophets. 

also  from  Ezekiel  to  Zechariah.  Haggai  speaks  more  like 
Jeremiah ;  Zechariah  betrays  the  Babylonian  influence, 
while  Haggai  speaks  like  a  Palestinean  that  had  not  left  his 
native  country  — as  if  the  former  had  been  a  disciple  of 
Ezekiel  and  the  latter  of  Jeremiah.  If  the  same  Zechariah 
wrote  also  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  this  book — which  is 
doubtful — then  he  may  certainly  be  taken  as  a  disciple  of 
Ezekiel.  For  this  chapter  xiv.  is  in  substance  identical 
with  Ezekiel's  Gog  prophecy  (chapters  xxxviii.  and  xxxix.) 
If  one  takes  with  this  the  Book  of  Daniel,  he  can  clearly 
conceive  that  the  apocalypsis,  in  which  finally  the  ancient 
spirit  of  prophecy  is  submerged,  is  of  Babylonian  origin ;  the 
Hebrew  and  the  Chaldean  geniuses  interwoven  produced 
this  new  phenomenon,  as  in  later  days  the  conflict  of  the 
Hebrew  and  the  Greek  geniuses  produced  other  phenomena, 
and  foreign  to  both.  It  is  also  well  to  bear  in  mind  that — 
what  is  so  frequently  noticed  in  the  Talmud — with  these 
last  prophets  begins  the  era  of  casuistry.  The  prophet's  in- 
tuitively productive  mind  having  lost  most  of  its  buoyancy, 
comes  down  to  discursive  reasoning,  as  we  will  see  especially 
in  Malachi,  and  ends  in  casuistry. 

2-3.  The  five  chapters  of  Zechariah  from  ix,  to  xiii,  are 
certainly  not  the  production  of  the  post-exilic  Zechariah. 
They  begin  in  two  instances  with  Massa  (ix.  and  xii.),  like 
Isaiah  and  his  immediate  successors,  announcing  divine 
oracles  to  the  Gentiles ;  and  this  prophet  addresses  his  first 
Massa  to  Syria,  and  the  second  to  Israel,  then  the  enemies 
of  Jerusalem  and  Judah.  This  points  at  once  to  the  in- 
vasion by  Pekah  and  Rezin  in  the  time  of  King  Ahaz.  He 
speaks  of  no  enemies  besides  those  coming  from  Syria, 
Tyre,  Zidon,  Philistia  and  the  Greek  slave-traders  (ix.  2,  5, 
6, 13),  as  did  also  Joel  (see  above,  chapter  iv.  3,  c.)  No 
Assyrian,  no  Babylonian,  no  Egyptian  enemy,  not  even 
hostile  Edom,  Ammon  and  Moab,  are  known  to  the  prophet, 
exactly  as  in  the  days  of  Joel.  He  speaks  of  the  Kingdom 
of  Ephraim  and  Joseph  (ix.  10 ;  x.  6)  as  a  living  reality.  He 
knows  no  Hebrew  exiles  in  Assyria,  except  those  from  the 
East  Jordan  land  and  the  Lebanon,  and  a  few  of  them  in 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  93 

Egypt,  when  both  these  countries  are  still  in  their  power 
and  glory  (x.  10,  11).  Ho  speaks  of  three  shepherds  being 
vanquished  in  one  month,  which  could  refer  only  to  Ahaz, 
Pekah  and  Rezin  (xi.  8,  9).  He  describes  the  prophets  with 
the  hoary  garments  and  "  wounds  between  their  hands " 
(xiii.  3-6),  not  as  they  did  appear  at  any  time  after, 
but  as  they  appear  prior  to  the  exile,  in  the  days 
of  Elijah  and  Elishah,  and  contemns  them  exactly  as 
did  Michah  (iii.  5-7).  He  calls  the  princes  Alluphei  Jehudah, 
and  after  the  captivity  they  were  called  Chorim,  Seganim, 
never  Alluphim.  He  speaks  of  the  Crown  Prince  Hezekiah 
(ix.  9)  as  did  Michah  in  his  time  (v.  1-3),  and  changes 
Michah's  Ki  attoh  yigdal  ad  Aphsei  Aretz  into  Umoshelo  miyam 
ad  yam,  etc.,  which  means  the  same.*  Besides  all  this  the 
diction,  rhythm,  phraseology  and  prophetical  buoyancy  in 
these  five  chapters  are  entirely  different  from  the  Zechariah 
style,  and  sound  fully  like  the  classical  Isaiah  time.  It 
seems,  therefore,  evident  that  these  five  chapters  belong  to 
the  earlier  Zechariah,  sou  of  Berachiah,  mentioned  in  Isaiah 
and  Chronicles,  and  were  attached  to  the  second  Zechariah 
by  mistake,  as  was  attached  the  second  Isaiah  to  the  first, 
not  by  the  compilers  of  the  Canon,  but  by  later  transcribers. 
24.  Malachi  is  before  us  in  three  chapters  of  fifty-five 
verses.  With  him  begins  the  polemic  dialogue  against 
skepticism,  so  well  perfected  in  Job  and  Ecclesiastes. 
It  sounds  like  a  distant  echo  from  the  prophetical  cata- 
ract.    The  temple  is  built,  all  its  institutions  are  there ; 

*Vehibbitu  aili  eth  asher  dakaru  xii.  10  refers  to  to  the  Yosheb 
Yerusholaim  in  the  same  verse,  therefore  he  changed  the  aili  into 
eilav.  In  verse  eleven  the  prophet  Bpeaks  of  the  mourning  over 
Hadadrimon  in  the  valley  of  Megidon.  This  ceremony  identical  with 
that  mentioned  in  Ezekiel  xii.  11,  the  women  of  Jerusalem  wept  over 
the  sungod  Tammuz,  and  Hadadrimon  being  identical  with  Hadad, 
the  sungod  of  the  North  Syrian  tribes,  could  not  possibly  have  been 
observed  in  the  valley  of  Megido  in  the  time  of  Zechariah,  when  all 
paganism  had  disappeared  in  Judah.  It  is  distinct  reference  to  an 
older  Zechariah,  when  such  pagan  practices  still  could  be  imagined 
as  existent  in  Judah. 


94  The  Later  Prophets. 

they  are  already  old  and  damaged  by  the  neglect  and  skep- 
ticism of  the  priests  and  corruption  among  the  people.  He 
begins  with  an  old  Massa  once  addressed  to  Israel  and 
Edom  (i.  1-5),  which  is  his  text,  basing  upon  which  he 
conducts  his  polemics  against  the  levity  and  corruption  of 
priest  and  people. 

He  describes  the  ideal  priest  (ii.  4-8)  and  compares  with 
him  the  low  and  despised  priesthood  of  that  day.  He 
threatens  them  with  the  sudden  approach  of  the  master  in 
his  palace,  whom  he  calls  the  angel  or  messenger  of  the 
covenant,  and  considers  himself  the  forerunner  of  him  who 
will  purify  the  palace  and  its  servants.  In  the  thirty-second 
year  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  Nehemiah  returned  to 
Susa,  and  remained  there  nine  years.  He  returned  to 
Jerusalem  and  found  everything  in  a  state  of  anarchy 
(Nehemiah  xiii.).  He  enforced  again  the  Law  and  the  Ezra 
reforms  with  his  own,  described  vividly  in  the  closing  chap- 
ter of  Nehemiah.  Shortly  before  the  return  of  Nehemiah 
to  Jerusalem  Malachi  must  have  delivered  his  incisive  dis- 
courses. If  Nehemiah  came  first  to  Jerusalem  in  445  B.  C, 
remained  there  twelve  years,  and  then  again  nine  years  in 
Susa,  he  came  the  second  time  to  Jerusalem  424  B.  C,  after 
the  death  of  Artaxerxes.  Then  Malachi  must  have  spoken, 
in  the  years  426  and  425  B.  C,  the  last  echoes  from  the 
prophetical  lyre.  The  closing  verses  of  this  book  (iii.  22- 
24),  it  is  maintained,  are  the  solemn  words  of  the  compilers 
of  the  prophetical  Canon,  to  connect  all  with  the  Thorah  of 
Moses  which  God  commanded  him  at  Horeb  for  all  Israel, 
and  to  remind  the  reader  that  zealous  prophets  like  Elijah 
always  came  and  always  will  come  to  bring  back  to  God  the 
hearts  of  the  parents  with  the  children.  That  is  to  say,  the 
right  man  in  proper  time  always  appeared,  and  always  will 
appear,  to  enforce  the  Thorah  of  Moses.  This  refers  princi- 
pally to  the  regular  and  uninterrupted  succession  of 
prophets  from  Moses  to  Malachi,  one  thousand  years  and 
more  of  prophetical  inspiration. 


CHAPTER  V. 

HAGIOGRAPHV. 

THE  nine  (or  thirteen)  books  of  Scriptures  called  "  Hagi- 
ography,"  or  sacred  writing,  mentioned  as  such  in 
the  translator's  introduction  to  Ben  Sirah's  book  and  in 
Josephus,  are  called  in  the  Talmud  plainly  D'DIH^  writ- 
ings or  scriptures,  and  in  the  later  Hebrew  works  ''^H^ 
JJ^Tlp  holy  writings  or  holy  scriptures,  and  it  is  maintained 

t:^l)pn  nnn  n^KJ  OOiriD  "  These  writings  were  said 
(or  written)  under  the  influence  of  the  holy  spirit.''  This 
is  the  degree  inferior  to  the  nine  degrees  of  prophecy.  In 
none  of  these  books  is  it  stated  that  God  said  or  spoke  to 
the  poet  or  commanded  him,  except  in  Job,  and  in  Daniel 
which  is  apocalyptic,  angels  take  the  place  of  the  voice  of 
God.  Psalms,  Song  of  Songs  and  Lamentations  are  purely 
lyric;  Proverbs,  Job  and  Ecclesiastes  (also  some  Psalms) 
are  didactic  ;  Ruth,  Esther,  Ezra,  Nehemiah  and  Chronicles 
are  historiographic,  without  any  attempt  or  even  pretension 
at  prophecy.  In  the  first  Christian  century  some  of  the 
Rabbis  proposed  to  take  out  of  the  Canon  Proverbs,  Song  of 
Songs,  Ecclesiastes  and  Esther,  but  did  not  succeed,  as  was 
the  case  also  with  the  Book  of  Ezekiel.  The  three  books  of 
Psalms,  Proverbs  and  Job,  called  by  the  Massorites  n'.t2'N 
in  reversed  order,  the  initial  letters  of  Thillim,  Miahlei  and 
jyol) — are  provided  with  signs  of  accentuation  different 
from  other  books  of  the  Bible,  which  point  to  a  chant  in 
ancient  time  peculiar  to  these  books,  as  they  are  also  dif- 
ferent in  rhythm  and  parallelism,  being  regularly  divided 
in  verses  of  two  or  three  parallel  lines,  each  line  of  three  or 
four  words,  exceptionally  of  two  or  five  words. 

2.  The  five  books  of  Psalms  are  five  collections  made  at 
different  times.     The  last  compiler,  connecting  the  five  into 


96  Hagiography. 

one  book,  did  not  obliterate  the  conclusion  of  each  book, 
nor  did  he  make  any  other  changes  in  the  text.  This  last 
compilation  appears  to  have  been  accomplished  in  the  time 
of  the  Maccabean  prince  and  high  priest  Simon.  Each  book 
except  the  first  contains  psalms  of  different  poets  and 
anonymous  hymns,  without  reference  to  chronology,  from 
David,  or  even  Moses  (Psalm  xc),  down  to  the  Maccabean 
age  (ibid,  cxviii.).  The  first  book,  with  the  exception  of 
the  four  anonymous  psalms,  i.,  ii.,  x.  and  xxxii.,  are  all 
ascribed,  or  inscribed,  to  David.  The  second  book  opens 
with  eight  psalms  of  the  sons  of  Korah,  followed  by  one  of 
Asaph,  then  follow  again  Davidian  psalms  from  Psalm  1.  to 
Ixx.,  with  one  anonymous  psalm  (Ixxi.),  which  appears  to 
belong  to  the  previous  one,  closing  with  the  psalm  addressed 
to  Solomon,  the  doxology  and  the  remarkable  words.  "  The 
prayers  of  David,  son  of  Jesse,  are  finished."  This  state- 
ment, which  was  there  in  most  ancient  times  (Pesach'm 
117a)  shows  that  the  compiler  of  the  second  book  knew  the 
first  and  preceded  those  of  three  following  books,  as  in  each 
there  are  Davidian  psalms.  The  third  book  opens  with  ten 
Asaph  psalms,  followed  by  two  of  the  sons  of  Korah,  then 
one  of  David,  and  two  more  of  the  sons  of  Korah,  and 
closes  with  the  psalm  of  Ethan,  the  Ezrahite,  and  a  simple 
doxology.  The  fourth  book  consists,  besides  the  prayer  of 
Moses  (xc.)  and  two  psalms  of  David  (ci.  and  ciii.),  of 
anonymous  psalms  exclusively.  The  fifth  book  again  con- 
tains fourteen  Davidian  and  one  Solomonic  among  its  forty- 
eight  psalms. 

3.  The  fact  that  some  of  the  finest  psalms  are  anonymous 
— and  some  of  them,  like  Psalms  cxxxv.  and  cxxxvi.,  are 
evidently  very  old — proves  that  the  headings  were  found  as 
they  are  by  the  compilers,  who  must  have  verily  believed 
that  those  psalms,  ascribed  or  inscribed  to  David  and  Solo- 
mon, were,  in  fact,  their  own  literary  productions,  as  is  cer- 
tainly the  case  with  Psalm  xviii. ;  or  at  least  that  they  were 
written  by  contemporaries  of  those  kings.  Fifty-nine  head- 
ings of  psalms,  also  the  musical  instruments  and  the  close 
of  chapters  are  quoted  and  discussed  in  the  Talmud  by 


Pkonaos  to  Holy  Writ,  97 

teachers,  reaching  up  into  the  first  Christian  century  (see 
Toldoth  Aaron),  hence  the  same  headings  were  there  then 
as  now  in  the  Massoretic  Bible.  The  only  difference  is  that 
Psalms  was  divided  then  in  147  chapters  and  now  in  150.* 
This  fact  is  also  apparent  in  the  Shir  ham-Maaloth  chap- 
ters (Ps.  cxx.  to  cxxxiv.),  five  of  which  are  ascribed  to 
David,  one  to  Solomon,  and  nine  are  anonymous.  The 
same  is  evident  from  the  hallel  psalms.  These  are  the 
hymns  chanted  by  the  Levites  in  the  temple  every  feast  and 
new  moon  day  as  part  of  the  divine  service.  All  of  these 
psalms  are  anonymous,  although  certainly  very  old,  as  the 
origin  of  the  custom  even  is  beyond  the  traditions  of  the 
Hebrews.  There  are  two  sets  of  this  hallel,  one  consisting 
of  Psalms  cxxxv.  and  cxxxvi.,  which  is  called  hallel  hng- 
gadol  in  the  Talmud,  "  the  great  or  rather  the  older  hallel," 
and  the  other  is  called  hallel  hamitzri,  "  the  lesser  or 
younger  hallel,"  consisting  of  Ps.  cxiii.  to  cxviii.  A  cur- 
sory inspection  of  these  two  hallel  convinces  the  reader 
that  the  second  is  an  elaboration  and  amplification  of  the 
first  and  replaced  it  in  the  temple  service. f 

*The  reason  of  this  150  division  may  have  been  liturgical,  to 
finish  the  -svhole  Psalm  book  annually  twice,  reciting  one  daily, 
Sabbath  excepted,  for  which  the  psalm  was  specially  marked 
(Psalm  xcii.),  making  twenty-five  every  month,  and  may  have  been 
made  at  the  end  of  the  third  century.  We  know  that  the  Levites 
sang  daily  in  the  temple  the  Mizmor  she!  Yom,  *'  the  psalm  of  the 
day"  (Mishnah  Thamid  vii.  4).  The  particular  psalms  noted  there 
may  have  been  taken  from  an  extant  list,  intended  for  any  par- 
ticular week.  Traces  of  the  group  of  five  are  still  there,  as,  for 
instance,  the  Shigayou  Psalm  v.,  the  Lammah  Psalm  x.,  the  five 
festive  hallel  Psalms  cxiii.-cxvii.  (cxviii.  was  added  later),  the  five 
anonymous  Lechu  Nerannenah  hymns  xcv.-xcix.,  the  fifteen  Shir 
ham  Maaloth  hymns  cxx.-cxxxiv.,  and  the  five  Hallelujah  hymns 
closing  the  whole  book.  It  is  custom  yet  with  many  to  read  five 
psalms  daily,  except  on  Sabbath,  for  which  was  made  a  special 
collection. 

+  1  Chronicles  xvi.  8-36,  identical  with  Psalms  cv.  1-15  and  xcv. 
is  also  an  elaboration  and  amplification  of  this  first  hallel,  and  is 
therefore  anonymous  in  both  cases. 


98  Hagiography. 

Yet  not  even  the  rabbis  knew  the  time  of  the  origin  of  the 
lesser  hallel,  and  differ  in  opinion  on  the  subject  from  the 
time  of  Moses  to  the  Babylonian  exile.  (See  Talmud  in 
Pesachim  117  and  118.}*  This  lesser  hallel  contains  no 
reference  to  any  event  by  which  the  approximate  date  of 
its  origin  could  be  fixed.  The  older  hallel.  however, 
clearly  and  distinctly  points  to  the  earliest  days  of  the 
Hebrews'  first  commonwealth,  to  Solomon's  temple,  or 
even  to  the  tabernacle  of  Shiloh.  It  is  primitive  in  form 
with  its  unison  responses  of  ''  His  goodness  endureth 
forever  "  without  including  the  name  of  God.  It  praises 
God,  without'  the  use  of  any  abstract  terms,  for  his  grace 
manifested  in  the  creation  of  the  world,  the  wonders  he 
wrought  for  Israel  in  Egypt,  and  in  the  conquest  of  Sihon 
and  Og  and  all  Canaan.  Then  it  deprecates  idols  and 
idolatry  and  admonishes  Israel  to  praise  and  worship  Jeho- 
vah. The  only  mention  of  Zion  is  in  the  last  verse  of  the 
one  hundred  and  thirty-fifth  chapter,  and  this  is  also 
omitted  in  the  one  hundred  and  thirty-sixth.  There  is  no 
mention  of  any  event  beyond  the  conquest  of  Canaan.  The 
antiquity  of  these  haUel  psalms  can  not  be  doubted,  and  yet 
the  compilers  left  them  anonymous,  as  they  found  them. 
No  more  proof  is  necessary,  all  a  priori  speculations  not- 
withstanding, that  the  compilers  of  Psalms  invented  no 
headings ;  they  found  them  so  and  exactly  so  in  the  MSS. 
which  they  compiled.  The  accusation  of  pious  fraud  and 
pseudonymousness  would  certainly  be  in  the  wrong  place 
here,  where  no  reason  is  imaginable  inducing  anybody  to 
falsify  a  religious  people's  prayers,  hymns  and  anthems, 
especially  if  the  best  of  them  are  without  name  or  date. 
Criticism  will  have  to  accept  the  headings  of  the  Psalms  as 
genuine  and  authentic,  even  if  there  is  a  discrepancy  in  the 
heading  of  Ps.  Ixxxv.  Nor  is  it  legitimate  to  doubt  that 
King  David  was  the  author  of  Psalms.  The  poet  and  musi- 
cian, as  represented  by  the  authors  of  Nehemiah  (xii.  46) 

*  In  Shir  Hashirim  Kabbah  ^^  T1303  Ezra  is  mentioned  as  one 
of  the  ten  authors  of  Psalms. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  99 

and  of  Chronicles  (1  Chronicles  xv.  28 ;  2  Chronicles  vii.  6 ; 
xxix.  16, 17,  and  elsewhere),  if  we  know  that  he  surely  did 
write  Ps.  xviii.  (see  2  Samuel  xxii.),  and  is  noticed  as  the 
sacred  bard  in  2  Samuel  xxiii, ;  Amos  vi.  6 ;  Ben  Sirah 
xlvii.  8-9 ;  2  Maccabees  ii.  13,  besides  2  Samuel  xxii.* 

4.  The  argument  that  the  Psalms  were  corrected,  reshaped 
and  rewritten  by  the  Menazeach,  or  "  Chief  Musician,"  and 
hence  that  we  are  not  in  possession  of  the  original  text  after 
all,  does  not  invalidate  their  authenticity.  For  this  suspi- 
cion attaches  only  to  those  Psalms  which  are  headed  Lam- 
nazeach,  "  to  the  chief  musician,"  and  concerning  them  we 
possess  documentary  evidence  that  euphonious  changes 
only  and  none  of  sense  or  phrase  were  made,  as  is  the  case 
also  with  the  Tikkun  Sopherim  and  Ittur  Sopherivi  in  the 
Thorah.  The  Menazeach  fitted  the  text  to  his  chorus, 
melody  or  orchestra,  which  sometimes  required  rhythmical 
or  euphonious  improvements  of  the  text.  By  comparing 
carefully  Psalms  xviii.  with  2  Samuel  xxii. ;  Psalms  xiv. 
and  liii.  (or  Isaiah  xxxvi  -xxxviii.  with  2  Kings  xviii  17  to 
XX.  19 ;  or  2  Samuel  vii.  with  1  Chronicles  xvii. ;  1  Kings 
viii.  and  2  Chronicles  vi.) ;  or  the  passages  in  Psalms  cxliv. 
taken  from  Psalms  xviii.,  viii.  and  xl.— and  these  are  actual 
cases  of  transcriptions  and  no  a  priori  suppositions — faith- 
ful adherence  to  the  original  texts  is  proved,  and  the 
changes  made  by  the  transcribers  are  without  the  least 
import  to  the  sense  of  any  passage. 

5.  The  various  compilers  of  Psalms  evidently  betray  their 
intentions  to  put  together  lyric  devotional  compositions  of 
former  days.  The  close  of  the  second  book  offers  proof  that 
it  was  compiled  after  the  first  and  before  the  third.     In  this 


*  It  is  remarkable  that  Psalms  begins  with  the  word  "llffN,  which 
word  in  the  plural  and  in  this  sense  occurs  nowhere  in  Scriptures 
prior  to  this  time,  except  in  the  concluding  verse  of  Deuteronomy 
(xxxiii.  29),  so  that  Psalms  certainly  points  back  to  the  Thorah. 
(See  Midrash  Thehilim  to  Psalm  cxix.)  The  same  seems  to  be  the 
case  in  Proverbs,  which  begins  ''h^'D,  a  word  found  nowhere  in 
Scriptures  prior  to  this  time,  except  in  Numbers  xxiii.  and  xxiv. 


100  Hagiography. 

third  book,  especially  Psalms  Ixxiv.*  and  Ixxix.,  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  burning  of  the  temple  are 
noticed,  and  in  the  chapter  closing  this  book  the  end  of  the 
Davidian  dynasty  is  lamented ;  the  throne,  like  the  altar,  is 
crushed.  Although  there  are  in  this  book,  as  izi  every 
other,  very  ancient  psalms  (Ixxx.  to  Ixxxviii.),  it  could  not 
have  been  compiled  prior  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
This,  however,  shows  that  the  two  former  books  were  com- 
piled prior  to  that  catastrophe.  The  fourth  book  ( Psalms 
xc.  to  cvi.)  is  again  a  cheerful  and  joyful  collection  of 
excellent  hymns  and  prayers,  entirely  different  in  tone  from 
the  third  book.  The  compiler  tells  us  in  clear  words  at  the 
end  of  his  little  book  that  he  flourished  after  the  restoration, 
evidently  in  the  time  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus.  Although 
it  is  very  difiicult  to  show  with  any  degree  of  certainty  that 
any  psalm  was  written  as  late  as  the  time  of  the  Maccabees, 
yet  the  fifth  and  last  book  contains,  with  very  ancient 
psalms,  also  the  latest  compositions  of  this  kind,  like  the 
six  hallel  psalms.  Psalm  cxix  ,  which  is  certainly  the  text 
book  from  the  boys'  school,  the  five  closing  Hallelujah 
psalms,  certainly  hymns  from  the  second  temple,  and 
others,  so  that  its  compilation  could  not  well  have  been 
accomplished  long  before  the  Maccabean  time,  when  the 
third  Canon  was  fixed.  The  first  two  books,  however, 
belong  to  Israel's  first  commonwealth.  The  first,  being  the 
Davidian  psalm  book  with  the  loftiest  hymns,  like  Psalms 
viii.,  xix.,  xxiv.,  xxix.,  xxxiii ,  full  of  re-echoes  from  nature's 
secret  shrine  and  the  spirit  of  holiness  and  devotion,  is 
certainly  the  oldeet.  It  is  completely  Jehavistic,  while  the 
second  book  is  mostly  Elohistic.f 

*Psalm  Ixxviii.  was  certainly  -written  before  the  exile,  as  were 
most  all  chapters  of  the  third  collection. 

tThat  the  divine  names,  Jehovah  and  Elohim,  do  not  point  to 
different  authors  or  ages,  is  especially  evident  from  Psalms.  The 
Davidian  Psalms  in  Book  I,  are  Jehavistic,  and  in  Book  II.,  with 
others,  mostly  Elohistic.  There  must  be  another  reason  for  the 
frequency  of  this  or  that  divine  name. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  101 

The  masters  of  song  and  the  musical  instruments  are  dif- 
ferent in  the  two  books.  In  Book  I.  the  King  is  yet  called 
the  Messiah,  and  David  is  twice  called  the  servant  of  the 
Lord ;  in  Book  II.  there  is  the  King  only  and  no  longer 
Messiah.  Book  I.  refers  continually  to  the  house  of  the 
Lord,  to  Zion,  and  to  the  Thorah,  all  of  which  dis- 
appears in  Book  II.  The  hapless  Levite  (Psalms  xlii. 
and  xliii.)  laments  his  absence  and  distance  from  the  house 
of  God,  which  is  far  beyond  his  reach.  Book  I.  mentions 
historical  events  from  the  advanced  age  of  David,  and  Book 
II.  refers  only  to  the  earlier  days  of  David.  Summing  up 
these  criteria,  we  can  but  come  to  the  conclusion  that  Book 
I.  was  compiled  in  Judah,  when  Zion  and  Moriah  were  in 
their  highest  glory  ;  and  Book  II.  was  compiled  in  the  King- 
dom of  Israel  when  its  decline  had  come,  mostly  from  the 
products  of  lamenting  Levites,  who  by  the  schism  of  Jero- 
boam had  lost  their  sacerdotal  dignity.  The  Levites  had 
their  fifty-two  cities  in  Israel,  and  the  priests  their  thirty- 
two  cities  in  Judah  (1  Chronicles  vi. ).  However,  there  is  no 
chapter  in  Book  11.  that  could  be  proved  to  reach  beyond 
the  reign  of  Jeroboam  II.,  and  none  in  Book  I.  that  reaches 
beyond  the  earlier  days  of  King  Solomon.  In  Book  I.  are 
the  main  hymns  of  David,  written  in  his  advanced  age  and 
for  the  use  of  the  Levites  in  public  worship ;  therefore  the 
tetragrammaton  is  used,  as  in  all  other  psalms  intended 
for  that  purpose.  In  Book  II.  are  such  psalms  of  David 
which  he  wrote  in  his  younger  days,  not  intended  to  be  re- 
cited in  public  worship  ;  therefore  the  term  Elohim  is  used 
in  place  of  the  tetragrammaton.  They  being  omitted  in 
the  first  collection,  the  compiler  of  the  second  book  added 
them  to  the  psalms  of  the  sons  of  Korah,  which  are  from 
the  Levites  of  the  Northern  Kingdom,  and  seem  to  have 
been  used  in  the  worship  at  the  altars  on  the  Heights, 
Bamoth  of  the  faithful,  that  did  not  worship  at  the  altars 
of  Jeroboam.  It  is  safe,  therefore,  to  date  the  compilation 
of  the  five  books  of  Psalms  thus  : 

Book  I.  900  B.  C. 

Book  II.  800  B.  C. 


102  Hagiography. 

Book  III.  550  B  C. 

Book  IV.  450  B.  C. 

Book  V.  140  B.  C,  when  the  present  canon  was  closed. 
6.  The  Book  of  Psalms,  as  before  us  in  the  Massoretic 
text,  consists  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  chapters,  divided 
into  2,527  verses.  Psalm  Ixxxviii.  36,  is  marked  as  half  of 
the  book  in  the  number  of  verses.  These  Psalms  have 
become  the  substance  of  the  civilized  nations'  devotional 
literature  and  imposed  their  phraseology  on  most  all  mod- 
ern languages.  They  breathe  stirring  religious  inspiration 
in  the  simple,  often  childlike,  language  of  nature,  and  give 
sympathetic  expression  to  every  form  of  human  woe — now 
tears  crystallized  in  plaintive  words,  then  soothing  consola- 
tion rising  to  triumphant  hope,  and  jubilant  anthem,  soar- 
ing aloft,  with  the  strains  from  a  heavenly  lyre,  from  the 
dark  valley  of  misery  to  the  very  throne  of  the  ineffable 
Deity.  Words,  human  language,  appear  inadequate  to  the 
psalmist  to  utter  the  praise  and  glory  of  the  Almighty,  and 
he  invokes  all  nature,  the  quick  and  the  dead,  to  sing  and 
shout  Hallelujah;  all  nature  is  roused  from  its  deathlike 
slumber  to  proclaim  aloud  the  glory  of  its  Maker.  It  is  the 
loftiest  species  of  poetry ;  the  pinions  of  the  highest  genius 
could  soar  no  higher,  and  none  did,  because  the  ideal  of  the 
psalmist  is  the  most  sublime ;  few  could  reach,  none  sur- 
pass it.  The  psalmic  tropes,  metaphors,  similes  and  para- 
bles, personifications  and  apostrophes  are  linked  to  nature, 
its  immutable  forms  and  phenomena ;  there  is  no  artificial 
imagery  in  them.  Therefore,  they  are  felt  and  understood 
universally,  and  impress  equally  forcibly  the  illiterate  child 
of  nature  and  the  man  of  culture,  if  they  are  not  too  much 
estranged  to  nature  and  piety.  This  is  perhaps  the  main 
cause  of  their  universal  adoption.  Most  important,  how- 
ever, is  the  collection  of  odes,  hymns,  didactic  poems,  Shir, 
Michtham  and  MasHI,  as  a  text-book  of  theology.  It  pre- 
sents to  us  what  those  ancient  Israelites  during  a  period  of 
eight  centuries  believed,  prayed,  hoped,  what  they  sang  and 
what  they  felt,  how  they  rejoiced  and  how  they  wept;  the 
soul  of  a  whole  people,  with  all  its  mysteries,  is  unveiled 


Pro^jaos  to  Holy  Writ.  103 

before  our  eyes,  not  in  the  dry  formulas  of  dogmatics,  nor 
yet  in  the  abstract  definitions  of  philosophy,  but  in  the 
animate  and  non-deceptive  language  of  prayer  and  adora- 
tion. 

7.  The  theological  doctrine  represented  in  Psalms  is 
beyond  any  doubt  the  religion  of  the  ancient  Israel. 
Whatever  were  the  laws,  rites  and  cults,  and  however  they 
changed,  these  were  the  well  established  and  fixed  beliefs, 
well  rooted  in  the  hearts  and  souls  of  the  people.  Reduc- 
ing these  doctrines  to  principles,  which  are  apparent  in  all 
the  oldest  and  latest  psalms,  in  the  prayer  of  Moses,  the 
psalms  of  David,  the  oldest  hallel  and  the  last  hallelujah, 
we  arrive  at  the  following  : 

(a)  The  stern  and  uncompromising  monotheism ;  it  is 
the  one,  and  sole  God  who  is  worshiped  ;  no  angel,  no  saint, 
no  mediator,  no  savior,  no  hypostasis,  no  kind  of  fetish, 
idol,  object  or  force  of  nature,  passion  or  handiwork  of  man. 
God  alone  and  absolute  is  the  sole  object  of  worship  and 
adoration,  the  hope  and  trust  of  man,  the  rock  of  salvation. 

(b)  The  lofty  position  ascribed  in  the  dispensations  of 
Providence  to  virtue,  righteousness,  purity  and  holiness  in 
God  and  man,  as  the  very  points  in  which  they  meet  and 
which  contain  the  summum  bonum. 

(c)  The  nearness  of  God  to  man  and  man  to  God,  so 
that  the  intimate  relations,  sympathy  and  love  are  but  faintly 
expressed  in  the  vulgar  phrase  of  the  fatherhood  of  God 
and  the  sonship  of  man. 

(d)  Man  appears  in  the  brightest  sunlight  of  omni- 
present Deity,  and  God  is  manifested  with  the  most  tender 
affections — almost  too  anthropomorphous — of  the  noblest 
humanity. 

These  principles  are  not  given  in  Psalms  as  something 
new  or  just  discovered;  they  are  there  as  old,  self-under- 
stood and  universally  cherished  heritages— the  common 
good  of  the  common  people,  Levite,  priest,  prophet  and 
prince  included.  The  poet  can  not  sing  what  the  popular 
mind  has  not  priorily  conceived ;  nor  does  a  people  pray 
what  is  not  rooted  in   its  beliefs.     It  is  evident,  therefore. 


104  Hagiography. 

that  these  great  principles  are  older,  much  older  than  the 
oldest  psalm ;  and  that  they  were  always  present  in  the  mind 
of  Israel.  It  must  also  be  admitted  that  the  pagan  worship 
and  aberrations,  which  prophets  and  chroniclers  so  loudly 
bewail  and  so  emphatically  condemn,  were  rebellious  ex- 
ceptions in  Israel ;  and  the  religion  with  these  principles 
was  the  general  rule  and  state  of  the  people.  This  brings 
us  face  to  face  with  the  question  :  Where  is  the  source,  the 
origin  of  these  principles?  The  Psalms  reply  for  them- 
selves :  the  origin  is  in  the  Thorah. 

8.  Proverbs,  the  second  book  of  Hagiography,  called 
Mishlei  Shelovioh,  contains  thirty-one  chapters  and  915 
verses,  each  of  two — seldom  three — parallel  lines  of  three  or 
four  words,  in  rhythm  and  diction  like  Psalms.  It  is  a  com- 
pilation of  didactic  poems,  some  as  short  as  two  stanzas. 
The  substance  of  these  poems  is  ethical,  the  ethics  of  the 
Hebrews  in  the  rhythmical  form ;  the  practical  philosophy 
in  the  form  of  popular  proverbs,  evidently  intended  to  be 
committed  to  memory,  especially  by  the  young,  to  whom  it 
is  addressed  by  the  author,  who  always  speaks  to  ^^"2,  "  my 
son."  In  form  the  Avhole  book  is  like  Psalm  cxix.,  which, 
by  its  alphabetic  acrostic — eight  stanzas  to  each  letter  of  the 
alphabet — betrays  the  author's  intention  to  assist  the  mem- 
ory of  young  learners,  only  that  this  psalm  is  addressed  to 
the  ~1_J7X  "  lad,"  the  younger  learner,  and  is,  according  to  its 
diction,  of  a  more  recent  origin  than  Proverbs.  In  Proverbs 
it  is  the  uniform  rhythm,  and  the  rhyme  of  sense  instead  of 
sound,  in  the  parallel  lines,  either  explanatory  or  supple- 
mentary, which  assist  the  memory;  while  Psalm  cxix., 
intended  for  younger  learners,  has,  in  addition  to  these 
mnemonic  arrangements,  also  the  eightfold  alphabetical 
acrostic.  The  authors  of  Koheleth,  especially  in  the  seventh 
chapter,  and  after  him  Joshua  ben  Sirah  (second  century 
B.  C.)  essayed  to  imitate  the  Solomonic  rhythm,  evidently 
to  the  same  purpose,  but  did  not  exactly  succeed.  The 
author  of  the  Book  of  Job  succeeded  better. 

9.  According  to  its  headings  Proverbs  consists  of  three 
parts.    It  is  headed  (i.  1)  "Proverbs  (poems)  of  Solomon, 


PiioNAos  TO  Holy  Writ.  105 

son  of  David,  King  of  Israel ;  "  then  chapter  x.,  "  Proverbs 
of  Solomon ;  "  then  chapter  xxv.,  "  Also  these  are  Proverbs 
of  Solomon,  which  the  men  of  Hezekiah,  King  of  Judah, 
compiled."*  To  this  come  yet  chapter  xxx.,  headed  "  The 
words  of  Agar,  son  of  Jakeh,  the  Masmh ;"  and  chapter 
xxxi.,  "the  words  of  Lemuel,  the  king,  a  Massah,"  closing 
with  the  golden  alphabet  of  woman.  The  fact  that  the  first 
heading  is  explicit,  adding  to  Solomon's  name,  "son  of 
David,  King  of  Israel,"  which  is  omitted  in  the  two  follow- 
ing headings,  shows  that  the  two  following  parts  were  added 
to  the  first,  being  before  that  a  separate  book.  In  the  third 
heading  the  words,  n'?kV  QX  "  also  these,"  admit  of  differ- 
ent interpretations ;  they  may  be  understood  that  only  the 
third  part  was  authenticated  as  Solomonic  by  the  men  of 
Hezekiah,  or  that  also  the  second  part  was  authenticated  by 
them.  In  the  latter  case,  however,  this  heading  ought  to  be 
over  the  second  part,  and  the  repetitions  in  the  third  part 
from  the  second  would  be  inexplicable.  Therefore  it  seems 
correct  that  the  third  part  was  a  separate  manuscript,  which 
the  men  of  Hezekiah  ascertained  to  be  Solomonic,  and 
added  it  to  the  book.  Chapter  xxx.  may  well  be  a  Massah 
addressed  to  Solomon  by  one  who  assumed  the  fictitious 
name  of  Agur,  as  we  shall  see  below ;  and  chapter  xxxi. 
may  also  be  addressed  to  Solomon,  in  behalf  of  his  mother, 
by  a  Syrian  seer,  to  which  he  responds  with  the  golden 
alphabet  closing  the  book.  At  any  rate  the  Talmudical 
tradition,  that  the  men  of  Hezekiah  wrote  or  authenticated 
the  whole  book  of  Proverbs,  is  not  supported  by  any  explicit 


*1i5^nyn  the  Hiphil  of  pny  was  used  in  the  New  Hebrew  for  trans- 
lating, from  its  primary  sense  of  "transposing,"  whicli  could  not 
1)6  its  meaning  here,  as  these  chapters  contain  literal  quotations 
from  former  chapters,  as,  for  instance,  xxviii.  13,  14.  It  must  be 
understood  in  the  sense  as  used  in  Proverbs  viii.  18,  "  dignified, 
permanent,  lasting,"  and  in  the  hiphil  form  to  make  something  so. 
The  men  of  Hezekiah  authenticated,  dignified  and  made  perma- 
nent these  chapters  to  be  also  of  Solomonic  origin,  and  added  them 
to  this  book. 


106  Hagiography. 

statement  in  the  book  itself.*  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  Solomon  was  a  writer  especially  of  Meshalim  (1  Kings 
V.  9-14).  His  book,  or  books,  Sepher  Dihrei  Shelomoh,  was 
extant  in  the  time  when  the  Book  of  Kings  was  written 
(ibid.  xi.  41),  to  which  also  Joshua  ben  Sirah  testifies  in  his 
book  (xlvii.  12-17).  It  is  as  certain  a  fact  as  it  is  that  he 
built  the  temple,  the  cities  of  Tadmor,  Balbec  and  Ezion 
Geber,  that  he  wrote  the  first  part  of  the  Proverbs  in  the 
earlier  days  of  his  reign,  for  there  is  laid  down  the  Solo- 
monic policy  and  standpoint  as  the  head  of  the  royalistic 
theocracy,  to  which  he  adhered  almost  to  the  end  of  his 
reign.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  theocracy  as 
established  by  Moses  was  democratic,  and  remained  so  for 
nearly  four  centuries.  With  the  ascension  of  King  Saul  it 
became  royalistic.  In  its  first  form  the  prophet  was  the 
head  of  the  State  (Deuter.  xviii.  15)  ;  the  Council  of  Elders, 
among  them  also  priests  and  Levites,  the  high  priest  pre- 
siding, and  the  judges  were  the  head  of  the  law  (ibid.  xvii.  8- 
13) ;  the  priests'  functions  were  limited  to  the  altar  and 
public  teaching  (Leviticus  x.  8-11 ;  Deut.  xxxiii.  8-11).  The 
transition  from  the  democratic  to  the  royalistic  theocracy 
was  not  easy.  Jeroboam  succeeded  in  abolishing  the  tra- 
ditional priesthood,  but  did  not  succeed  in  extinguishing 
the  authority  of  the  prophet.  Under  Saul  and  David  the 
authority  of  the  prophet  remained  superior  even  to  the 
king's.  Solomon  attempted,  successfully  for  a  time,  to  set 
aside  entirely  the  prophet's  authority  and  establish  his  own 
as  the  sovereign  head  of  the  theocracy.  During  the  reign  of 
Solomon,  to  the  very  last  years  thereof,  no  prophet's  voice 

*  The  ingenious  suggestion,  that  "  King  Alkum  "  (xxx.  31)  refers 
to  the  high  priest  Alcymos,  successor  of  Menelaus  in  the  Macca- 
bean  time,  and  the  "  lion  "  (verse  30)  refers  to  Judah,  or  his  suc- 
cessor, Jonathan,  is  not  impossible,  as  the  compilers  of  the  third 
Canon,  in  the  time  of  Simon,  may  have  added  this  passage,  as  they 
added  Maccabean  psalms  to  the  Psalm  book  ;  but  then  the  "  king  " 
must  be  omitted  from  "  King  of  Alcymos,"  as  the  latter  was  no  king. 
But  there  is  no  necessity  for  this  allegation,  and  nothing  to 
prove  it. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  107 

is  heard,  and  when  heard  again  it  is  that  of  the  stern  oppo- 
sition to  the  wise  king  (1  Kings  xi.  29-39).  The  temple  is 
built  and  pompously  dedicated  and  no  prophet  is  heard. 
The  king  does  all  the  praying,  receives  himself  the  mes- 
sages from  On  High,  and  conjures  down  from  heaven  the 
fire  upon  the  altar.  There  is  no  prophet  anywhere.  In  the 
writings  of  the  prophets  in  aftertimes  it  is  David  and  Zion 
that  are  glorified ;  Solomon's  name  is  not  mentioned  any 
more.  Solomon  opposed  effectually  the  authority  of  the 
prophets,  to  establish  his  own  as  the  sovereign  head  of  the 
theocracy.  On  what  did  he  base  his  claim  of  superiority  to 
the  prophets?  The  historical  sources  reply,  he  based  his 
claim  on  superior  wisdom,  which  God  himself  is  said  to 
have  bestowed  on  him  as  it  was  given  to  no  other  mortal 
(1  Kings  iii.  5-28;  v.  9-14).*  The  difference,  however,  be- 
tween Solomon's  and  the  prophetical  wisdom  is  that  Sol- 
omon's was  simply  his  own,  the  natural  product  of  his 
mind,  and  the  prophetical  was  by  inspiration,  special  mes- 
sages from  On  High.  It  was  this  prophetical  prerogative 
which  Solomon  opposed.  With  this  knowledge  derived 
from  history  we  open  the  Book  of  Proverbs  to  find  in  it 
the  entire  exclusion  of  all  special  prophecy.  Wisdom,  rea- 
son, understanding,  knowledge,  prudence,  intelligent  device, 
forethought  and  counsel  are  personified,  apostrophized  and 
glorified  in  all  possible  variations,  especially  chapters,  i.-x., 
of  song  and  eloquence,  f  David  sings  the  praise  of  God, 
Solomon  sings  the  praise  of  wisdom.  David  listens  with 
awe  and  reverence  to  the  prophet's  message.  Solomon 
receives  none  and  wants  none ;  wisdom  is  his  highest 
authority. 

*  It  is  instructive  to  read  2  Chronicles  i.  7-13,  how  that  author 
who  glorifies  the  temple  builder  otherwise  modifies  his  wisdom  to 
a  much  lower  degree  and  omits  much  of  what  the  author  of  Kings 
wrote  before  him. 

+  The  oldest  commentary  on  the  nature  of  Solomon's  wisdom  is 
in  the  apocryphal  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  chapter  viii.,  and  there  it  is 
plain  enough  that  it  was  intended  as  a  poetical  personification, 
and  no  hyjiostasis  like  the  Gnostic  Sophia. 


108  Hagiography. 

The  whole  Book  of  Proverbs,  without  an  exception,  is 
written  in  this  very  spirit,  and  must,  therefore,  be  the  gen- 
uine work  of  Solomon.  There  was  no  time  after  the 
Solomonic  age  (certainly  not  the  time  of  King  Hezekiah) 
down  to  the  time  beyond  the  Macedonian  Alexander,  when 
such  a  spirit  domineered  in  Israel.  We  must  also  take  into 
consideration  that  in  the  whole  book  there  is  no  com- 
plaint of  and  no  allusion  to  any  national  mishap,  war, 
idolatry,  moral  corruption  or  any  suffering  at  all,  except  the 
poverty  of  individuals,  everything  is  lovely,  peaceful,  with 
plenty  of  wealth  and  sufficiency  of  protection.  It  was  evi- 
dently the  Solomonic  age,  with  its  advanced  state  of  culture, 
peace  and  wealth,  which  produced  the  book. 

10.  The  Solomonic  ethics  as  laid  down  in  Proverbs  is  in 
substance  the  ethics  of  Moses,  as  Psalms  is  the  lyric  expo- 
sition of  the  theology  of  Moses.  The  ethical  principles  of 
Moses  are  reduced  to  practical  precepts,  and  in  this  respect 
it  matters  not  whether  all  passages  of  Proverbs  are  of  Solo- 
monic origin ;  all  of  them  are  in  full  consonance  with  the 
plan  and  principle  of  the  book,  hence  if  not  by  Solomon 
they  are  all  in  the  spirit  of  the  wise  king.  It  is  admitted  in 
the  Talmud  that  Solomon  furnished  the  handle  or  ears  to  the 
closed  urn  of  the  Thorah  (Erubin  216.)*  But  it  is  also  stated 
there  ( Taanith  8)  by  the  chief  Massorite  of  Tiberias,  Rabbi 
Jochanan,  that  there  is  nothing  in  Proverbs,  or  even  in  all 
Hagiography,  which  is  not  suggested  in  the  Thoralx,  and  he 
discovers  Proverbs  xix.  3  suggested  in  Genesis  xlii.  21. 
Those  ancient  expounders  of  the  law  credit  Solomon  with 
a  number  of  ritual  laws  which  he  is  said  to  have  ordained, 
and  yet  at  one  time  proposed  to  remove  from  the  Canon  Pro- 
verbs, Song  of  Songs  and  Ecclesiastes,  because  "  It  is  merely 
the  wisdom  of  Solomon"  (Meguillah),  who  sought  to  be 
like  Moses,  for  which  the  Bath  Kol  rebuked  him  {Rosh 
Hashona  21),  and  did  not  heed  the  warning  of  the  Thorah 
in  Deuter.  xvii.  14-20,  concerning  the  conduct  of  the  king 

no-?'^  N3tr  ny  D'jtk  nS  psc*  hd'ssS  rv2'\i  n-nn  nrrn  nSnnn  * 


Pronaos  to  Holy  AVeit.  109 

{Sanhedrln  2\).  They  entertained  no  very  high  opinion  of 
Solomon's  moral  character  (D*pD  n{<^  IJ^KI  t^lH  HNJ) 
and  held  the  very  highest  opinion  of  his  wisdom  (iri^JfT^ 
'n'Ch^  "ION)-  Only  in  a  few  instances  Solomon  is  placed 
higher  than  the  prominent  savant.*  Thus  is  maintained 
(Maccoth  23)  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  poured  out  in  Sol- 
omon's court  of  justice;  and  furthermore  (Sotah  41)  that 
"  Former  Prophets  "  means  David,  Samuel  and  Solomon. 
This  difference  of  opinions  among  the  ancient  sages  would 
be  inexplicable,  if  we  would  not  know  already  that  the 
policy  of  Solomon  was  anti-prophetical  as  far,  anyhow,  as 
the  "judging"  and  "governing"  was  concerned,  claiming 
for  himself  unlimited  sovereignty  by  virtue  of  his  superior 
wisdom,  and  that  on  the  other  hand,  his  ethics,  in  Proverbs, 
anyhow,  is  no  more  and  no  less  than  the  principles  of  the 
Mosaic  ethics  reduced  to  practical  precepts  to  meet  the  va- 
riety of  vicissitudes  and  emergencies  in  the  life  of  the  indi- 
vidual and  society.  Some  of  those  ancient  rabbis  did  hold, 
as  did  also  the  author  of  the  apocryphal  book,  "Wisdom  of 
Solomon,"  "  the  wise  man  is  superior  to  the  prophet,"  which 
others  did  not  admit.  This  explains  the  difference  of 
opinions  among  the  ancient  rabbis  on  Solomon  and  his 
ethics. 

11.  The  Solomonic  ethics  is  a  commentary  on  the  Mosaic 
ethics,  as  by  reason  understood.  This  is  evident  from  the 
principle  laid  down  in  Proverbs  i.  7  :  "  The  fear  of  Jehovah 
is  the  beginning  of  knowledge,"  the  spontaneous  knowledge 
of  the  good,  the  beautiful  and  the  true  in  all  particular  cases. 
This  is  further  explained  thus  (Prov.  ix.  10)  :  "  The  fear  of 
Jehovah  is  the  beginning  (efficient  cause)  of  wisdom  and 


*  The  defense  made  for  this  religious  character,  "  Whoever  says 
Solomon  sinned  is  in  error,"  is  contradicted  in  2  Kings  xxiii.  13: 
for  the  defense  relies  on  the  potential  mood  of  n33^  TX  (1  Kings  xi. 
7)  and  understands  the  passage,  "Then  he  intended  to  build" 
those  altars  to  the  gods  of  his  wives,  but  did  not  actually  build 
them ;  while  in  2  Kings  it  is  stated  that  Joshiah  destroyed  the 
Bamoth  which  Solomon  had  built  to  those  gods. 


110  Hagiography. 

the  knowledge  of  holiness  is  understanding."*  It  produces 
wisdom,  viz  :  the  correct  moral  judgment  and  the  control 
over  the  will  by  that  judgment.  This  again  is  explained 
(Prov.  XV.  33)  to  this  effect:  "The  fear  of  Jehovah  is  the 
correction  of  wisdom,"  it  directs  reason  into  the  proper 
channel  and  guides  the  will  to  the  proper  action.  It  is  on 
this  princij)le  that  the  author  exclaims  (Prov.  xxi.  30), 
"  There  is  no  wisdom  nor  understanding,  nor  counsel  against 
Jehovah,"  contrary  to  or  in  conflict  with  the  God  idea  as 
known  and  understood  in  Israel,  as  expressed  in  the  word 
Jehovah;  whatever  is  contrary  to  this  God-idea  or  con- 
flicting with  it,  is  not  wisdom,  not  understanding,  not 
counsel.  So  did  the  author  of  Job  also  understand  the 
fundamental  idea  of  Proverbs.  He  sings  the  ode  of  wisdom 
(Job  xxviii.  22)  entirely  in  the  sense  of  Solomon  and  closes 
it,  "  And  he  said  to  man,  behold  the  fear  of  Adonai  (equiv- 
alent for  Jehovah),  this  is  wisdom,  and  to  eschew  evil  is 
understanding."  This  is  the  touchstone  of  genuine  wisdom, 
the  manifestation  of  correct  understanding.  So  did  also 
the  author  of  the  apocryphal  book  of  the  "  Wisdom  of  Sol- 
omon "  understand  and  reproduce  the  Solomonic  principle 
of  ethics,  as  wisdom  based  upon  the  fear  of  Jehovah.  None 
perhaps  has  expressed  it  more  forcibly  than  the  princely 
prophet  (Isaiah  xxxiii.  6)  :  "  The  firmness  of  salvation,  wis- 
dom and  knowledge  shall  be  the  stability  of  thy  time ;  the 
fear  of  Jehovah  is  its  treasury."  What  everybody  knows 
need  not  be  proved.  Every  reader  of  Moses  knows  that 
''  Jehovah  "  is  the  word  which  expresses  the  God  idea  of  the 
Mosaic  scriptures,  defined  in  various  passages  of  the 
same  Pentateuch ;  and  every  one  can  see  for  himself  that 
the  whole  book  of  Proverbs  is  exclusively  Jehavistic.  So 
everybody  who  has  read  Moses  must  admit  that  the  ethical 
principle  with  him  is  based  upon  the  cogitation  and  cog- 
nition of  Jehovah  and  his  nature  of  grace  and  holiness,  so 

*  Kedoshim  in  this  case,  like  the  plurals  in  many  other  cases, 
Adonim,  Chochmnlh,  etc.,  signifies  the  abstract  idea  of  the  terms, 
holiness,  lordship,  etc. 


Pkonaos  to  Holy  Writ.  Ill 

that  man's  knowledge  of  ethical  doctrine  is  identical  with 
his  knowledge  of  God's  moral  attributes,  and  all  moral 
obligation  has  its  root  in  the  Mosaic  God-idea.  This  may 
be  considered  unphilosophical,  but  it  is  undoubtedly  the 
Mosaic  standpoint,  and  perfectly  identical  with  the  Sol- 
omonic standpoint,  with  whom  also  Yir a* h  Jehovah,  the  fear, 
veneration,  worship,  cogitation  and  cognition  of  God  as  by 
Moses  defined  and  taught,  is  the  foundation  and  principle 
of  all  ethics  and  man's  moral  obligation.  The  opposition 
of  the  prophets  and  the  objections  of  the  ancient  rabbis  to 
the  wise  king's  teachings  finds  its  explanation  in  his  oppo- 
sition to  the  prophets  and  their  supremacy  in  his  time,  all 
of  which,  he  thought,  could  be  replaced  by  the  superior 
wisdom  which  God  had  granted  him,  as  far  as  the  govern- 
ment of  the  nation  and  the  dispensation  of  justice  were 
concerned ;  and  as  far  as  the  self-government  of  the  indi- 
vidual is  concerned,  he  thought,  the  same  principle  was 
applicable,  wisdom  based  upon  and  rooted  in  the  fear  of 
Jehovah  with  the  revealed  material  before  them  was  also 
all  -  sufficient,  without  any  further  special  oracles  of  any 
prophets.  This  peculiar  rationalism  which  always  there- 
after had  its  prominent  admirers  in  Israel,  especially  among 
the  kings  and  princes,  brought  on  him  the  ire  of  prophets 
and  rabbis.  The  men  of  Hezekiah  in  collecting  and  com- 
piling the  last  portion  of  Proverbs,  which  they  certainly 
believed  to  be  of  Solomonic  origin,  defend  the  wise  king 
with  the  argument  that  he  certainly  took  his  ethical  prin- 
ciple from  the  Thorah  of  Moses. 

12.  Proverbs  xxviii.,  the  author  speaks  distinctly  of  the 
Thorah  as  the  code  of  ethics,  the  canon  of  justice,  and  the 
source  of  religious  instruction  without  any  prophetical  aid. 
He  speaks  of  the  Rasha,  who  flees  where  none  pursues,  in 
imitation  of  Deut.  xxxii.  30,  and  the  Tzaddik,  fearless  and 
confident  like  the  lion.  He  speaks  then  (verse  4)  of  the 
friends  of  the  wicked,  viz  :  min  Of^^  "  Those  who  forsake 
the  Thorah,  praise  the  wicked"  and  n"l"in  HDItT  "  those 
who  guard  and  observe  the  Thorah  content  with  them,"  the 
former  are  the  J71  "^t^m  "  the  men  of  evil  that  understand 


112  Hagiography. 

no  justice,"  because  they  reject  the  Thorah,  and  the  latter  as 
^■^  ''tJ^r^D'J  ''  those  who  seek  Jehovah  (in  his  Thorah)  under- 
stand it  all."  He  then  speaks  (verse  7)  of  ^*^"l^  '^'^M,  "  the 
guardian  of  the  Thorah  is  a  wise  son,"  and,  referring  to 
Deut.  xxi.  18-20,  he  concludes,  "  the  companion  of  the 
riotous  shameth  his  father,"  or  the  father  brings  such  a  son 
to  shame,  according  to  the  above  law,  saying  that  the  oppo- 
site of  the  guardian  of  the  Thorah  who  spends  his  time  in 
reading  and  searching  the  Thorah,  is  the  companion  of  the 
riotous,  that  runs  himself  and  his  father  into  shame.  Then 
(verse  9)  he  speaks  of  a  third  class,  ^^OC^O  *\2t^  "I'DD 
niin,  "  one  who  turneth  away  his  ear  from  hearing  the 
Thorah,"  who  does  not  only  not  observe  the  Thorah  and  not 
meditate  therein,  but  would  not  hear  of  it  if  others  speak 
to  him  of  it,  "  also  his  prayer  is  an  abomination  ;"  because  it 
is  not  the  expression  of  any  honest  religious  sentiment.  In 
this  case  Thorah  can  not  signify  any  canon  except  the  well- 
known  Thorah  of  Jehovah,  for  the  observer  of  which  is  the 
parallel  in  verse  5.  '>''  "'C^ODD,  like  Psalms  cv.  3  and  Isaiah 
li.  1,  "those  that  seek  Jehovah."  Nor  could  it  refer  to  a 
traditional  Thorah,  to  which  the  term  1'^^^  is  not  applicable 
and  the  ^OJi*  in  verse  9  would  be  a  mere  tautology.  The 
author  evidently  refers  to  the  written  and  well-knowii  canon 
called  the  Thorah  of  Jehovah  or  the  Thorah  of  Elohim. 
This  reference  to  the  Thorah  of  Moses  is  also  supported  by 
the  plain  statements  in  Proverbs  xiii.  and  xxii.  17  e.  s.y  by 
the  statements  of  1  Kings  ii.  3  and  viii.  36,37;  also  1 
Chronicles  xxii.  12,  13 ;  and  especially  by  the  doctrine  con- 
tained uniformly  in  the  whole  book. 

13.  Two  objections  are  urged  against  this  theory.  One 
is  the  manner  in  which  the  author  speaks  of  sacrifices, 
Proverbs  xxi.  3  and  22,  and  the  golden  alphabet  of  woman, 
with  which  the  book  closes.  In  the  dedication  prayer  Solo- 
mon does  not  even  mention  the  sacrificial  cult  (1  Kings 
viii.  22-61) ;  and  in  the  above  passages  the  author  merely 
repeats  the  words  of  the  prophet  Samuel  (1  Samuel  xv,  22, 
23),  as  did  several  prophets  and  poets  of  Psalms  without 
dereliction  to  the  sacrificial  cult.      In   chapter  xxxi.   the 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  113 

author  sings  the  praise  not  of  queens,  princesses,  concubines 
or  other  ladies  of  the  court ;  he  sings  the  praise  ot  the  plain 
citizen's  noble  spouse.  It  is  a  reply  to  his  mother's  chas- 
tisement, with  which  the  chapter  opens.  Lemuel,  the  King's 
Massa,  is  addressed  to  Solomon,  and  the  golden  alphabet  of 
woman  is  his  excuse  for  his  polygamy  and  the  debauchery 
connected  with  it.  He  had  not  found  among  his  thousand 
wives  and  concubineB  one  like  this,  because  he  was  a  king 
and  not  a  plain  citizert.  Besides  this  he  closes  his  book 
with  Yirath  Jehovah  as  he  begins  it  (i.  7),  true  religion  as 
the  fundamental  principle  of  human  dignity  and  greatness, 
with  woman  as  well  as  with  man,  exactl}^  as  Moses  did. 
The  very  first  word  of  the  book  ^'Mishlei,^^  occurs  nowhere 
before  Solomon  in  this  sense  except  in  the  Pentateuch 
(Numbers  xxiii.  18). 

There  exists  no  good  cause  to  deprive  King  Solomon  of  the 
authorship  of  Proverbs  i.-xxv.,  or  to  doubt  the  veracity  of 
the  men  of  Hezekiah,  who  compiled  the  annex  to  the  book. 
Consequently  it  is  safe  to  place  the  former  after  1000  years 
B.  C.  and  the  completion  of  the  book  700  years  B.  C. 

14.  The  Book  of  Job  (Ee-yob),  the  third  volume  of 
Hagiography,  consists  of  forty-two  chapters,  one  thousand 
and  seventy  verses,  the  middle  of  which  is  chapter  xxii., 
verse  16.  Except  chapters  i.,  ii.  and  xlii.,  which  are  prosaic, 
the  book  is  written  in  the  same  meter  or  rhythm  as  Pro- 
verbs and  Psalms,  but  differs  from  both  in  diction,  espe- 
cially by  its  numerous  quotations  and  imitations  of  older 
scriptures  and  many  new  terms.*  As  a  poetical  production 
it  is  the  master  work  not  only  of  the  Bible,  but  also  of  the 
ancient  world's  literature. 

It  is  an  epos,  the  hero  of  which  is  the  man  of  perfect 
righteousness,  and  is  composed  of  philosophical  dialogues. 
Job,  pain-stricken,  bereaved  of  all  his  wealth,  health  and 
happiness,  with  his  wife  and  his  dearest  friends  against 
him,  in  a  state  of  unspeakable  misery,  discusses  with  them 

*Like  D'BtS'i  ,ntS-|  Ot3t  ,331  f  HK'  -pp  -DOp  'yiD  '^'V  'L"t3y  'P-^]}  n^D 
and  many  others. 


114  Hagiography. 

the  theme  of  righteousness  as  the  will  of  God  and  the  duty 
of  man.  His  friends  maintain  Job  must  be  a  grievous  sin- 
ner, therefore  Gcd  punished  him  so  severely,  and  admonish 
him  to  repent  his  misdeeds  and  to  appeal  to  God's  mercy. 
One  of  them  attempts  to  console  Job  with  the  faith  of  the 
pious  that  are  punished  here  for  their  sins  and  receive  the 
full  reward  for  their  righteousness  in  life  eternal.  Again, 
another  admonishes  Job  to  submit  without  a  murmur  to 
the  inscrutable  will  and  wisdom  of  God,  as  man,  who  is  a 
mere  atom  in  God's  creation,  could  not  go  into  judgment 
with  the  Lord  of  the  universe.  He  could  but  appeal  to  his 
mercy  and  grace.  The  fourth  endeavors  to  review  and 
refute  the  justification  of  Job  and  the  harshness  of  his 
words  uttered  in  a  state  of  utmost  pain  of  mind  and  body, 
basing  upon  the  moral  principle,  that  it  is  sinful  to  speak 
as  Job  did  of  God  and  his  justice,  that  the  woe-stricken 
must  not  thus  cry  out  his  pain  and  grief  before  the  Father 
of  man.  Job's  wife,  worst  of  all,  sarcastically  upbraids  him 
with  his  stern  righteousness,  which,  she  said,  had  brought 
him  down  to  the  lowest  state  of  misery,  and  advised  him  to 
abandon  all  hope  and  faith,  "Blaspheme  God  and  die." 
Job,  however,  did  not  sin  with  his  lips.  He  sternly  rebukes 
his  wife  and  argues  against  his  friends — not  always,  indeed, 
in  the  most  proper  language,  as  one  less  woe-stricken  might 
have  done.  He  pleads  his  perfect  innocence ;  he  knows 
himself  free  of  sin  and  guilt ;  he  has  done  as  much  good  as 
any  man  in  his  position  could ;  it  is  not  punishment  which 
is  inflicted  on  him.  He  questions  even  the  justice  of  God, 
in  bringing  such  misery  on  frail  man  as  punishment  for 
sins  committed,  as  the  Maker  knows  how  weak  and  perish- 
able the  creature  is,  and  man's  misdeeds  can  not  affect  God 
in  anywise.  He  argues  against  the  ideas  of  future  reward 
as  a  consolation  in  his  present  misery,  as  that  reward  was 
uncertain  in  man's  mind ;  hence  it  could  not  counterbal- 
ance his  present  misery,  which  is  a  certainty  and  contin- 
uous woe  to  him.  He  could  not  accept  the  inscrutability 
of  God's  will  and  wisdom  as  a  consolation  in  his  abject 
misery;  ignorance  is  no  consolation;  his  pains  are  no  less 


Pkonaos  to  Holy  Writ.  115 

grievous  because  he  knows  not  why.  He  steadily  main- 
tains his  consciousness  of  justice  and  righteousness,  hence 
he  knows  that  justice  and  righteousness  are  God's  will  and 
man's  duty;  pain  or  joy,  grief  or  happiness,  however  or 
whatever  may  come  upon  man  and  with  what  degree  of 
intensity  they  come,  man  must  not  desert  his  own  nature, 
and  his  nature  is  also  God's  nature ;  he  can  not  and  must 
not  desert  or  abandon  justice  and  righteousness.  I  know 
not  why  I  am  woe-stricken,  Job  argues,  but  I  know  that 
justice  and  righteousness  are  the  rock  of  humanity,  hence 
also  the  essentiality  of  my  Maker.  God  closes  the  argu- 
ment ( chapters  xxxvii.  to  xl.),  and  admonishes  Job's  friends 
(xlii.  7)  "  That  ye  have  not  spoken  of  me  as  properly  as  my 
servant  Job."  Job  is  also  instructed  by  the  Almighty  that 
no  mortal  comprehends  fully  the  plans  and  workings  of 
Providence;  and  he  confesses  (chapter  xl.  1-4  and  xlii. 
1-6)  that  he  had  blindly  argued — which  the  author  of  the 
book  makes  known  to  the  reader  in  the  very  beginning  by 
the  allegory  in  heaven — he  confesses :  "■  I  have  heard  of 
thee  by  the  hearing  of  the  ear,  but  now  my  eye  hath  seen 
thee,  wherefore  I  abhor  myself  and  I  repent  in  dust  and 
ashes. '  It  is  the  epos  of  the  perfectly  righteous  man,  who 
in  pain  and  grief  changeth  not  his  allegiance  to  righteous- 
ness, and  even  then  reserves  his  moral  fortitude  to  confess, 
that  he,  in  his  outcry  of  woe  and  his  groans  of  pain,  had 
not  spoken  as  it  behooves  the  righteous  man.  This  is 
acknowledged  by  one  of  the  oldest  authorities  mentioned  in 
the  Talmud,  and  mentioned  only  on  account  of  this,  his 
defense  of  Job  (Sotah  22):  "Rabbi  Joshua  ben  Hyrcan 
said  Job  worshiped  God  out  of  love,"  which,  according  to 
those  ancient  Pvabbis,  is  the  highest  degree  of  piety  and 
moral  perfection. 

15.  The  position  of  the  Book  of  Job  in  the  Canon  is  that 
of  apologetics.  Therefore  it  was  placed  after  Psalms  and 
Proverbs,  although  it  is  older  than  some  Psalms  and 
claims  a  closer  resemblance  to  prophetical  writings  than 
Proverbs.  In  the  course  of  logical  thought  there  had  to 
follow  after  the  elucidation  of  theology  in  Psalms  and  the 


116  Hagiography. 

exposition  of  ethics  based  on  that  theology  in  Proverbs — 
where  the  Yirath  Jehovah  is  treated  as  a  well  known  and 
well  understood  conception — the  apologetics  of  both  in  the 
Book  of  Job.  The  hero  of  the  epos  in  the  poet's  mind  may 
have  been  the  man  Job,  the  righteous  jiatriarch  living  in  a 
foreign  country  near  the  borders  of  the  wilderness,  whose 
consistent  piety,  in  wealth  and  poverty,  health  and  abject 
disease,  under  all  vicissitudes  of  an  eventful  and  mutable 
life,  had  become  the  admired  pattern  of  a  righteous  man, 
as  he  is  represented  by  the  prophet  Ezekiel,  together  with 
Noah  and  Daniel  (Ezekiel  xiv.  24).  Or  the  term  Ee-yoh, 
which  signifies  "  one  subjected  to  animosities  or  persecu- 
tions," may  be  a  personification  representing  the  people  of 
Israel  exposed  unjustly  to  the  animosities  and  persecutions 
of  petulant  nations,  represented  in  the  allegory  by  Satan. 
The  various  opinions  of  Job's  friends,  against  which  he 
contends,  may  have  been  prevalent  among  different  parties 
of  that  time  in  defense  of  Providence  and  the  justice  of 
reward  and  punishment;  and,  in  fact,  they  are  traceable 
in  the  history  of  philosophy  both  in  Greece  and  the  Orient. 
Or  those  opinions  may  have  been  prevalent  among  the 
Hebrews  as  the  moral  cause  of  Israel's  sufferings  among 
the  nations,  the  dispersion,  captivity  and  restoration ;  and 
these  various  speculations  are  traceable  in  Prophets,  espe- 
cially in  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel  and  Deutro-Isaiah,  and  in  some 
of  the  later  psalms,  as  Job's  principle  is  specially  illus- 
trated in  Isaiah  liii.  and  Psalms  73,  94.  Whatever  may 
have  been  the  plastic  subject  in  that  philosophical  poet's 
mind — it  is  difficult  now  to  ascertain  it — the  character  of 
the  book  as  a  philosopheme  is  not  affected  by  it ;  it  is  the 
apologetics  of  the  two  mq,in  doctrines  of  Moses,  viz. : 
re\^elation  and  righteousness. 

(a)  Revelation,  God  himself  speaking  to  man,  is  origin- 
ally Mosaic.  Vayedahber  Yehovah  el,  "  God  spoke  to  Moses, 
to  Moses  and  Aaron,  to  the  people  of  Israel,''  and  not 
merely  God  appeared  or  said  to  this  or  that  person  in  a 
dream  or  vision,  by  an  angel  or  another  vehicle  of  com- 
munication, is  the  formula  of  the  revelation,  peculiar  to 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  117 

Moses  only,  and  is  found  nowhere  else  in  Scriptures,  except 
once  in  Joshua  xx  ,  which  is  a  quotation  from  Moses.  The 
necessity  of  revelation  is  undoubtedly  one  of  the  main 
points  which  the  author  of  Job  seeks  to  demonstrate.  He 
begins  with  a  plot  in  heaven  unknown  to  Job  and  his 
friends.  He  produces  their  arguments  on  the  cause  of  Job's 
sufferings,  none  of  which  is  the  right  one,  for  they  are 
ignorant  of  the  heavenly  plot,  and  are  unable  to  unravel 
the  mystery  or  to  satisfy  Job,  till  at  last  Jehovah  himself 
appears  and  enlightens  Job  on  the  momentous  problem  of 
Providence  and  righteousness.  The  author  evidently  wishes 
to  tell  us  that  without  revelation  we  would  not  know  this 
doctrine,  and  knowing  it,  we  would  not  be  able  to  under- 
stand it,  as  was  the  case  with  Job  and  his  friends,* 

(b)  Righteousness  is  an  attribute  of  God  (Deut.  xxxii.  4), 
the  fundamental  duty  and  means  of  salvation  to  man 
(Exodus  xix.  5,  6),  is  the  substance  of  revelation,  which 
was  unknown  to  all  Pagan  religions  of  antiquity.  It  is  the 
doctrine  of  Abraham  and  Moses  only  (Genesis  xviii.  17-33) 
and  the  heritage  of  the  congregation  of  Jacob  It  is  the 
foundation  upon  which  the  whole  Mosaic  dispensation 
rests,  viz. :  "God  is  just,  he  giveth  to  every  man  according 
to  his  ways  and  according  to  the  fruits  of  his  deeds." 
God's  mercy,  grace,  holiness  are  included  in  his  attribute  of 
justice,  and  condition  the  execution  thereof  on  man  on 
account  of  his  numerous  imperfections  and  his  free  will. 
This  makes  righteousness  absolutely  the  duty  of  man.  To 
doubt  the  justice  of  God  is  identical  with  doubting  the 
truth  of  the  Abrahamitic  and  Mosaic  revelation.  This 
skepticism,  it  appears  from  Malachi,  from   Psalms  Ixxiii. 


'■^  This  seems  to  be  the  reason  that  the  Talmud  maintains  Moses 
■vrrote  the  story  of  Balaam  and  the  Book  of  .Jol),  both  l)eing  defenses 
of  revelation,  and  plenary  revelation,  giving  doctrine  and  law  to 
man,  according  to  those  teachers  is  ascribed  to  Moses  only. 
Balaam,  the  greatest  of  Gentile  prophets,  then  and  there  is  incon- 
sistent, superstitious,  treacherous  and  immoral  (Numbers  xxv.  1  ; 
xxxi.  8-16,  and  Sanhednn  86) ;  he  with  his  wisdom  lacks  the  revela- 
tion and  proves  its  necessity. 


118  Hagiography. 

and  xciv.,  and  the  closing  chapter  of  Nehemiah,  had  taken 
hold  on  people's  minds  when  the  author  of  Job  wrote  his 
apologetics,  proving  his  position  in  the  last  chapters  with 
God's  own  speech,  pointing  out  to  Job  the  power,  wisdom, 
goodness  and  justice  prevailing  in  the  vast  domain  of  nature 
everywhere  ;  too  vast  for  man  to  comprehend  it  all,  still  clear 
and  evident  enough  to  force  upon  Job  the  conclusion  that 
there  is  an  eternal  and  universal  justice  and  goodness  con- 
ceivable in  the  whole  of  God's  creation,  although  inscruta- 
ble and  inexplicable  in  its  details,  in  individual  cases. 

16  When  was  this  grand  book  written  and  who  was  its 
author?  It  is  humiliating  to  confess  that  so  grand  and  sub- 
lime a  poet  passed  away  and  no  trace  of  his  name  is  left  in  his 
book,  none  in  the  nation's  traditions,  so  that  the  oldest  au- 
thorities had  no  knowledge  of  it.  The  time  of  this  book's 
origin  can  be  established  by  the  following  facts  : 

(a)  Job  was  not  written  in  the  prophetical  period  ;  it  is 
different  in  substance,  method  and  style  from  all  books  of 
that  period.  It  is  not  psalmodic  like  David ;  not  gnomic 
like  Solomon ;  not  predictive  like  the  prophets ;  it  is  purely 
didactic  and  universal,  and  in  the  dialogue  form  like  Plato 
and  portions  of  the  Zendavesta.  Besides  this,  it  philoso- 
phizes and  contends  with  skepticism ;  and  a  prophetical 
age  doubts  not.  hence  reasons  not  discursively.  It  is  not 
the  free,  untrammeled  and  artless  speech  of  an  inspired  and 
vehemently-moved  mind ;  the  entire  book  is  carefully  and 
artistically  finished ;  it  is  a  work  of  art  as  a  whole  and  in 
all  its  details,  and  contains  besides  many  imitations  and 
quotat'Dns  from  older  scriptures.  Its  horizon  embraces  the 
cosmos,  which,  besides  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  and 
Psalm  civ.,  has  no  precedent  in  Scriptures ;  and  its  specu- 
lations on  human  nature  and  events  are  universally  human, 
as  none  did  write  or  speculate  before  him  in  Palestine. 
Again,  in  all  the  dialogues  of  Job  and  his  friends  the  tetra- 
grammaton  does  not  occur  (except  once,  xii.  9,  in  a  quota- 
tion) ;  the  Shaddi  and  El,  or  Elovah,  mostly  take  the  place 
of  the  ineffable  name.  The  book  could  not  possibly  have 
been  written  at  any  time  during  the  prophetical  period. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  119 

(b)  On  the  other  hand,  the  book  presents  other  pecu- 
liarities. It  is  not  prophetical,  nor  yet  is  it  apocalyptic.  It 
knows  of  the  Benai  Elohim;  also  of  Zechariah's  Satan,  but 
they  are  not  even  called  Malachim,  "Angels,"  and  may  be 
taken  as  poetical  fictions.  No  angels,  no  visions  of  unde- 
fined allegories,  no  oracles  from  on  high  appear  in  the  dia- 
logues. Only  in  the  introductory  and  closing  chapters, 
when  God  speaks,  the  terms  Elohim  and  Jehovah  occur. 
None  of  the  later  writers  whose  products  are  preserved  in 
Scriptures  would  let  God  speak  to  man  directly ;  neither 
Daniel,  Ezra  nor  Nehemiah  rose  to  that  height  in  his  spirit- 
ual exaltation,  none  would  thus  freely  use  the  tetragram- 
maton  or  its  next  equivalent,  Elohim.  It  is,  therefore,  evi- 
dent that  Job  was  written  nearer  to  the  prophetical  age 
than  those  other  books,  and,  according  to  what  we  know  of 
the  prevailing  skepticism  in  the  time  of  Malachi,  the  poet 
of  Job  must  have  flourished  and  written  during  the  last 
days  of  Nehemiah  or  very  shortly  after,  when  the  prophet- 
ical strains  still  reverberated  in  the  people's  souls,  the 
catholicity  of  the  Deutro-Isaiah  had  taken  root  in  the  pop- 
ular mind,  and  an  enlarged  conception  of  nature  and  cos- 
mos pervaded  the  land  from  the  Chaldeans  on  the  one  side 
and  the  Egyptians  on  the  other.  Therefore  we  may  take 
for  granted  that  the  Book  of  Job  was  written  between  420 
and  400  B.  C  ,  as  the  Talmud  has  it. 

17.  The  fourth  book  of  Hagiography  is  composed  of  the 
five  Megtdlloih  "  scrolls,"  and  in  this  order :  Song  of  Solo- 
mon {Shir  Hashshirim) ;  Ruth,  Lamentations  (Aichah) ; 
Ecclesiastes  (Koheleth),  and  Esther.  This  succession  of  the 
"  scrolls  "  in  the  volume  is  of  recent  date,  as  noticed  before, 
and  follows  the  order  as  they  were  read  in  the  synagogues, 
viz. :  Shir  Hashshirim  was  read  on  Passover,  when  the  year 
of  the  Mosaic  festivals  begins  ;  Ruth  was  read  on  Pentecost ; 
Aichah  the  ninth  da}''  of  the  month  of  Ab,  the  anniversary 
day  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  its  temple  ;  Koheleth 
during  the  Feast  of  Booths,  and  Esther  on  Purim  day. 
According  to  their  supposed  authors,  as  fixed  in  the  tradi- 
tions, their  order  should  be  Ruth,  Shir  Hashshirim,  Kobe- 


120  Hagiography. 

leth,  Aichah,  Esther,  and  in  this  order  we  must  consider 
them. 

18.  Ruth  consists  of  four  chapters,  eighty-five  verses,  the 
middle  of  which  is  ii.  21.  It  is  an  idylic  narrative  in  artless 
prose,  glorifying  the  ancestress  of  the  royal  house  of  David, 
whose  name  was  Ruth  or  Ruoth,  "  the  friendly."  She  was 
the  mother  of  Obed,  and  he  was  the  father  of  Jesse,  who 
was  the  father  of  David  (Ruth  iv.  17).  According  to  this 
statement,  the  story  of  Boaz  and  Ruth  transpired  three 
generations  or  a  century  before  the  time  of  David,  and  so 
the  book  begins  :  "  And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  days  of  the 
Judges."  According  to  the  Talmud,  Boaz,  the  hero  of  the 
idyl,  was  identical  with  Ibzan  (Judges  xii.  8),  of  Beth 
Lehem,  who  was  Judge  in  Israel  after  Jephthah.  Accord- 
ing to  1  Chronicles  ii.  9-12,  Boaz  was  a  lineal  descendant 
of  Nahshon  ben  Aminadab,  the  princ3  of  the  tribe  of  Judah 
in  the  time  of  Moses.  The  character  of  Ruth,  with  her 
filial  devotion  to  her  mother-in-law,  is  almost  identical  with 
that  of  Jephthah's  daughter,  so  that  both  seem  to  reflect  the 
spirit  of  the  age.  Still  it  does  not  give  any  assurance  that 
it  was  written  prior  to  the  days  of  David,  whose  genealogy 
seems  to  be  the  main  object  of  the  little  volume.  The 
Talmud  maintains  that  Samuel,  the  author  of  Judges,  was 
also  the  author  of  Ruth.  The  beginning  of  the  book  shows 
that  it  was  written  after  the  close  of  the  period  of  the 
Judges,  hence  after  Samuel's  abdication.  We  might  sup- 
pose that  the  story  was  known  with  its  details  in  the  family 
of  Jesse  only,  as  it  was  of  no  particular  interest  to  others ; 
and  Samuel  when  he  anointed  David,  coming  in  close 
contact  with  the  family,  and  being  much  interested  in  it, 
learned  its  family  traditions  and  wrote  this  lovely  story  to 
gain  the  popular  favor  for  his  favorite,  David.  The  diction 
of  the  book  hardly  differs  from  that  of  Judges.  But  then 
Samuel  must  have  been  quite  old,  and  it  does  not  seem 
likely  that  so  old,  earnest,  serious  and  disappointed  a 
statesman  and  prophet  could  have  written  so  light,  lovely, 
simple,  sublime  an  idyl,  in  which  life,  love,  nature  in  their 
most  charming  simplicity  are    portrayed    so  plastically. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  121 

Besides,  the  spirit  of  the  Ruth  scroll  does  not  seem  to  be 
the  same  with  that  of  the  uncompromising  theocratic- 
democratic  and  warlike  patriot.  In  Ruth,  the  daughter  of 
Moah,  the  enemy  of  Israel,  the  worshiper  of  Chamosh  is 
glorified,  graced  with  the  sweetest  womanly  virtues  and 
charms,  and  is  held  up  as  a  plastic  pattern  of  excellent 
piety  and  purity  to  the  daughters  of  Israel.  This,  like  the 
Book  of  Jonah,  Deutro-Isaiah  and  Job,  betrays  a  tolerance, 
catholicity  and  universal  religion,  which  hardly  looks  like 
the  time  of  Samuel.  It  rather  looks  as  if  David  in  his 
younger  days  had  written  it  and  Samuel  had  made  it 
known  in  favor  of  the  young  bard  and  hero.  The  language 
of  the  whole  volume  is  that  of  a  young,  poetical  and  viva- 
cious writer.  There  is  no  expression  in  the  whole  narrative 
which  points  to  an  age  beyond  the  Davidian,  while  that 
artless  simplicity  of  speech,  manners,  occupation,  food, 
house,  the  touching  and  unconscious  innocence  of  the 
heroine,  the  simple  urbanity  of  Boaz,  although  evidently  a 
prominent  aristocrat  among  his  townsmen,  point  to  a  high 
antiquity,  evidently  to  a  pre-Davidian  age.  This  is  also 
supported  by  the  frequent  use  of  the  tetragrammaton  and 
Shaddi  in  the  conversational  passages,  which  no  writer 
after  the  prophetical  millenium  would  do.  It  is  the  frequent 
reference  to  the  Thorah  of  Moses  which  misled  critics,  and 
also  us  in  former  days,  to  place  the  authorship  of  Ruth 
after  the  time  of  Ezra.  But  after  we  do  know  that  in  the 
time  of  Samuel  and  David  the  Thorah  was  well  known, 
there  is  no  reason  whatever  why  the  authorship  of  the  Book 
of  Ruth  should  not  be  given  to  Samuel  and  David  during 
the  last  half  of  the  eleventh  century  B.  C. 

19.  The  Song  of  Solomon  or  Song  of  Songs — Shir  Hash- 
irim — consists  of  eight  chapters  divided  into  one  hundred 
and  seventeen  verses,  the  middle  of  which  is  iv.  14.  In 
diction  and  rhythm  it  is  purely  Solomonic  and  Hebraic,  as 
it  is  in  its  sceneries  and  tropes  purely  Palestinian.  There 
is  no  allusion  in  it  to  a  divided  country ;  Jerusalem  and 
Thirzah,  Lebanon,  Karmel,  En  Gedi  and  Baal  Hamon  are 
equally  delightful,  the  tower  of  David  and  the  tower  of 


122  Hagiography. 

Lebanon  are  of  equal  distinction,  Gilead  in  the  north  and 
the  seam  of  the  wilderness  in  the  south  are  present  in  the 
poet's  mind.  As  a  profane  lyric  poem  or  a  collection  of 
poems,  an  outpouring  of  the  most  impetuous  passions,  a 
glowing  word  picture  of  indomitable  love  "  mighty  like 
death  "  on  the  background  of  all  that  is  beautiful,  fragrant, 
refreshing  in  motion,  shapes  and  colors,  beguiling  and 
intoxicating  in  human  beauty  and  Palestinian  climate  and 
scenery.  Shir  Hashidm  ranks  highest  in  the  world's  litera- 
ture. And  yet  with  all  its  enticing  and  sense-enchanting 
tropes  and  almost  lascivious  descriptions  it  denies  nowhere 
the  chastity  and  purity  of  the  Hebrew  woman,  the  devotion 
and  self-control  of  the  Hebrew  lover,  which  always  outshine 
and  overwhelm  the  wild  fire  of  passion  and  the  inebriety  of 
sensuality.  Nor  do  all  the  opulent  beauties  of  nature  com- 
pressed by  the  poet  in  so  small  a  frame  form  the  prominent 
and  plastic  presentation  of  the  poem  ;  they  are  mere  back- 
ground and  frame-work,  mere  ornamentation  of  the  main 
picture,  which  is  human  excellency,  love,  honor,  purity, 
faithfulness,  vehement  resistance  to  seductive  sensuality, 
strength  of  character  and  the  triumph  of  a  noble  woman- 
hood over  the  very  tempting  enticements  of  the  world's 
most  envied  treasures  of  happiness.  No  Greek,  no  Arab, 
none  but  a  Hebrew  poet  could  produce  such  a  poetical 
creation. 

20.  The  story  which,  with  some  exceptions,  is  the  subject 
of  the  whole  Shir  Hashirim  is  quite  simple.  Sulamith  (the 
feminine  Solomon),  an  artless  shepherdess,  comely  though 
sunburnt,  is  the  object  of  King  Solomon's  ardent  love. 
She  is  brought  to  Jerusalem,  and  under  the  influence  of  all 
the  dazzling  brilliancy  of  the  royal  court,  the  seductive 
promises  of  the  most  extravagant  luxur}^  and  pomp,  the 
persuasive  language  of  the  royal  lover,  the  choruses  of  the 
court  and  the  daughters  of  Jerusalem.  Sulamith's  best 
affections,  however,  belong  to  the  shepherd  in  her  rural 
home ;  she  clings  to  him,  sings  his  praise,  fancies  and 
dreams  of  him  only,  addresses  to  the  absent  lover  the 
words  of  love's  liquid  fire,  remains  steadfast  and  firm   in 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  123 

her  affections  and  forces  the  poet  to  the  conviction,  "  Love 
is  strong  as  death — jealousy  is  cruel  as  the  grave — the  coals 
thereof  are  coals  of  fire,  a  most  vehement  flame.  Many- 
waters  can  not  quench  love,  neither  can  the  floods  drown 
it ;  if  a  man  would  give  all  the  substance  of  his  house  for 
love,  it  would  utterly  be  contemned  "  (viii.  6,  7).  The 
whole  of  Song  of  Songs  is  a  glorification  of  the  daughter  of 
Israel,  the  triumph  of  the  ideal  over  the  sensual,  the  moral 
idea  over  the  voluptuous  and  sensuous  allurements,  out- 
side the  centers  of  wealth,  luxury  and  sensuality.  Yet  the 
main  subject  is  several  times  dropped  in  the  book  and  other 
songs  are  inserted  (iii.  7-11) ;  iii.  1-5  and  the  similar  v.  2-8 
are  dreams  of  Sulamith,  as  she  says  (v.  2),  which  she  tells 
the  daughters  of  Jerusalem ;  viii.  8-10  and  11-14  are  frag- 
ments of  poems. 

21.  In  this  natural  signification  Shir  Hashirim  may  be 
well  taken  as  the  product  of  King  Solomon  or  at  least  of 
the  Solomonic  age,  which,  as  the  Talmud  maintains,  the 
Men  of  King  Hezekiah  compiled,  and  the  non-Solomonic 
poems  may  have  been  taken  into  the  Solomonic  because 
they  had  been  addressed  to  him,  so  that  T}t2i7C*^  "^t^J^  in  the 
heading  may  be  intended  to  express  both  "  by  "  and  "  to  " 
Solomon,  as  in  the  case  in  Psalms  with  the  *'  Le  David  " 
and  "  Li  Shelomoh."  The  fact  that  Solomon  is  the  rejected 
lover  in  the  poem  does  not  contradict  his  authorship.  It  is 
the  identical  case  as  with  the  golden  alphabet  of  women  in 
Proverbs.  The  polygamist  Solomon  must  have  well  under- 
stood that  he  could  never  possess  a  woman's  genuine  love 
like  the  poet's  ideal,  and  so  he  felt  himself  rejected  by  Sula- 
mith. He  objectified  himself  in  the  poem,  as  many  other 
poets  did,  and  this  is  the  most  touching  lyric  echo.  It  is 
maintained  that  there  are  Aramaic  or  Syriac  words  in  the 
poem,  therefore  the  conclusion  that  it  must  have  been  writ- 
ten in  the  Kingdom  of  Israel,  where  the  Syriac  at  an  early 
date  was  interpolated  in  the  Hebrew — for  which  not  the 
shadow  of  proof  exists  ;  or  it  was  produced  in  or  after  the 
Babylonian  captivity,  which  is  impossible.  The  exile,  the 
mourner,  the  genius  with  mortified  sentiments  among   a 


124  Hagiogkaphy. 

mortified  and  hapless  people,  could  not  sing  so  cheerfully 
and  joyfully ;  nature  does  not  appear  to  him  so  illuminated, 
love  not  so  sublime ;  the  music  of  the  hapless  is  plaintive, 
his  song  melancholy,  and  none  can  rise  very  high  above  the 
sentiments  dominant  in  his  community.  In  the  time  of 
Solomon,  who  reigned  over  the  largest  portion  of  Syria,  it 
could  not  appear  strange  to  anybody  if  Syriac  terms  had 
been  adopted  by  Hebrew  writers  or  vice  versa.  Besides  this, 
however,  there  exists  no  proof  that  the  terms  pointed  out  as 
Syriac  were  not  Hebrew  long  before,  or  that  prior  to  the 
adoption  of  the  Aryan  terms  in  the  Syriac  there  was  much 
difference  in  the  roots  of  the  two  languages.  This  is  also 
applicable  to  the  song  of  Deborah.*  No  word  can  be  called 
Syriac,  because  it  was  no  longer  used  in  the  Hebrew  and 
preserved  in  the  Syriac.  Again,  that  there  are  fragments 
of  other  poems  inserted  in  the  Sulamith  poem  was  not  ad- 
vanced originally  by  Abraham  Ibn  Ezra  and  repeated  by 
ever  so  many  exegetics  down  to  Moses  Mendelssohn,  Aaron 
Wolfsohn  and  Joel  Levy ;  the  theory  appears  already  in  the 
Midrash  (  Rabhah  to  Canticles,  I.  section),  where  Rabbi  Aibo 
maintains  that  it  announces  itself  as  containing  at  least 
three  different  parts,  and  this  was  in  the  third  Christian 
century.  From  this  standpoint  Shir  Hashirim  becomes  in- 
telligible, and  especially  one  of  its  most  striking  peculiari- 
ties is  explicable.  God's  name  is  never  mentioned  in  this 
book,  no  reference  even  to  God — except  in  Shalhehethjah,  and 
here  the  term  jah  is  an  adjective  expressing  strength,  power 
in  the  superlative  degree — no  Providence  or  any  religious 
sentiment  is  met  in  it.  This  is  without  parallel  in  the  Bible, 
except  the  Book  of  Esther.  The  only  supposition  to  ex- 
plain this  seems  to  be,  that  neither  of  these  books  was  writ- 
ten for  any  divine  purpose,  and  those  ancient  men  obeyed 


"'K*  sheh  instead  of  l^H  asher  is  used  in  both  poems,  and  this  could 
but  prove  that  the  poets  used  this  abbreviation  long  before  it  was 
adopted  in  prose  composition.  The  proof  is  in  the  heading  of  Shir 
Hashirim,  which  certainly  must  be  younger  than  the  poem,  and 
there  asher  and  not  sheh  is  used  as  the  relative  pronoun. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  125 

very  strictly  the  third  commandment ;  they  would  not  write 
or  pronounce  any  name  of  God  in  profane  song  or  narrative. 
It  seems  evident  from  a  passage  in  tlie  Talmud  (Sanhedrin 
101a)  which  found  its  way  into  the  "Zohar"  in  Thcru,inah, 
that  Shir  Hashirim  was  in  common  use  as  banquet  songs 
and  at  such  other  symposia,  against  which,  of  course,  Tal- 
mud and  Zohar  protest,*  although  in  the  Mishnah  (  Yndaim 
iii.  5  and  iv.  6)  it  is  not  decided  that,  as  Rabbi  Jose  main- 
tains, the  great  poem  is  endowed  with  the  same  grade  of 
holiness  as  other  holy  books. 

22.  When  the  question  rose,  if  Shir  Hashirim  is  a  profane 
poem  or  collection  of  Solomonic  poems,  why  did  the  Men 
of  Hezekiah  compile  the  little  volume,  and  if  they  did  this 
in  honor  or  out  of  particular  respect  for  the  king's  illus- 
trious sire,  why  did  the  great  Sanhedrin  that  established 
the  third  canon  accept  it  among  those  holy  books? — then 
it  was  advanced,  and  especially  by  Rabbi  Akiba  ben  Joseph 
and  his  supporters,  that  Shir  Hashirim  was  an  anagoge. 
Its  characters  are  symbolic.  Sulamith  is  the  congregation 
of  Israel ;  Solomon,  except  in  one  passage,  represents  the 
name  of  God ;  its  tropes  are  esoteric,  its  entire  structure  is 
mystic,  it  discusses  the  love  of  God  to  the  congregation  of 
Israel,  that  mystic  love  which  the  prophets  also  symbolize 
by  the  love  of  bridegroom  and  bride.  The  main  question 
might  have  been  answered  thus  :  this  grand  monument  of 
a  sublime  genius  deserved  careful  preservation,  and  is  no 
less  glorious  to  the  ancestors  of  the  nation  than  the  records 
of  heroes  on  the  fields  of  battle,  or  the  wisdom  of  savants 
in  the  nation's  council.  Nor  is  its  subject  less  divine  than 
the  friendship  of  David  and  Jonathan  so  carefully  described 
in  1  Samuel,  or  the  undying  love  of  Jacob  for  his  so:i 
Joseph;  love  in  any  form  is  a  bright  reflex  of  divinity. 
Sulamith's  faithful  and  indestructible  love  is  as  divine  and 
as  worthy  of  record  as  a  nation's  love  of  country  proven 
genuine  in  trying  and  distressing  struggles.  We  might 
suppose,  however,  that  those  earnest,  serious,  chaste  and 


'ji  nor  rc3  imt<  nnyi  'K'nt?  h^  piDQ  ^•r^\>r\  pan  i3n  * 


126  Hagiography. 

God-fearing  men  could  not  well  appreciate  such  arguments. 
Those  savants,  however,  do  not  give  any  reason  why  just 
this  one  production  of  Solomon  should  be  an  anagoge, 
when  all  his  other  writings,  as  also  those  of  David  and 
Samuel,  their  contemporaries  and  immediate  successors,  are 
plainly  exoteric.  It  could  not  be  on  account  of  the  subject, 
as  the  love  of  God  and  Israel  is  fully  expressed  in  the 
covenant,  upon  which  the  whole  structure  of  Israelism  was 
based,  and  Solomon  built  the  temple  and  had  deposited  in 
its  sanctum  sanctorum  the  "Ark  of  the  Convenant  of  Jeho- 
vah" (1  Kings  viii.  1-11).  There  was  no  cause  whatever 
for  putting  the  main  and  well  known  conception  under  a 
cloud  of  mysticism,  nor  does  it  seem  proper  to  represent 
the  divine  love  in  so  sensual  a  form.  Besides  all  this, 
Sulamith  does  not  reciprocate  the  love  of  SL)lomon ;  she 
rejects  him  and  remains  true  and  faithful  to  her  absent 
shepherd  lover ;  hence  the  esoteric  idea  of  the  poem  would 
be,  that  God  loves  the  congregation  of  Israel,  but  she  loveth 
best  the  charms  and  bliss  of  nature's  gifts,  or  clings  tena- 
ciously to  other  ideals  of  happiness.  This,  indeed,  may 
have  been  the  esoteric  idea  of  the  poet,  in  the  opinion  of 
the  Akiba  school,  and  thus  again  Solomon  objectifies  him- 
self. Anyhow,  there  is  no  alternative  left;  either  Shir 
Bashirim  is  plainly  exoteric,  the  poems  were  written  by 
Solomon,  with  some  addressed  to  him,  in  the  tenth  century 
B.  C,  or  it  is  esoteric  and  was  written  under  circumstances 
of  national  prosperity  and  happiness  similar  to  the  Solo- 
monic age,  which  never  was  the  case  except  in  the  early  days 
of  the  reign  of  the  Egyptian  Ptolemies  over  Palestine. 
Then  the  idea  of  the  Platonic  love  had  reached  Palestinian 
poets,  together  with  the  Grecian  forms  of  poetry  and  the 
worship  of  external  beauty,  so  exuberantly  displayed  in 
Shir  Hashirim.  Then  the  struggle  of  Judaism  against 
alluring  Grecism  was  still  young  and  mild,  and  seemed  so 
much  more  dangerous  to  the  former.  The  highest  ideals  of 
the  Grecians  were  beauty,  philosophy,  poetry  and  the  king, 
while  Judaism  clung  to  Sinai,  righteousness,  God  and  his 
law.     The  poet,  whiLe  glorifying  the  daughter  of  Israel,  well 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  127 

represents  this  struggle  between  two  civilizations.  Sula- 
mith,  the  daughter  of  Sinai,  that  '"  cometh  up  from  the 
wilderness  leaning  on  her  beloved  "  (viii.  5)  well  represents 
the  congregation  of  Israel,  faithful,  true  to  her  beloved. 
The  beloved  is  the  God  of  Israel,  who  in  the  whole  poem  is 
spoken  of  by  Sulamith,  but  never  appears  personally  on 
the  stage  of  the  poem ;  he  is  the  invisible  God,  whom  no 
idols  can  represent.  The  highest  ideals  of  the  Grecian 
mind,  philosophy  and  the  king,  could  best  be  represented 
by  the  philosophical  King  Solomon,  and  he  is  the  absent 
shepherd's  mighty  rival.  But  he  is  rejected,  the  wisest  of 
kings  is  vanquished  by  the  unshaken  faith  of  the  plain 
shepherdess ;  the  Grecian  ideals  can  not  captivate  the 
congregation  of  Israel ;  she  remains  faithful  to  her  beloved, 
to  Sinai,  to  the  God  of  Israel.  Here  is  the  anagoge  without 
mysticism.     It  is  an  allegory.* 

We  can  not  decide  which  is  the  case,  but  we  know  that 
only  these  two  are  probable  :  either  Shir  HasJiirim  is  an 
exoteric,  poetical  effusion  of  King  Solomon  and  some  of 
his  contemporaries,  and  was  compiled  by  the  Men  of  Heze- 
kiah,  as  the  tradition  has  it,  or  it  is  an  allegory  and  was 
written  in  the  time  of  Ptolemy  Euergetes,  221-204  B.  C.  It 
was  accepted  in  the. third  canon,  because  it  represents  so 
well  the  cause  of  Judaism  in  its  struggle  with  Grecism. 
Because  it  was  written  so  late  it  contains  no  name  of  God 
whatever,  and,  therefore,  it  was  used  as  a  popular  song  at 
banquets  and  other  symposia. 

23.  Ecclesiastes  (Koheleth)  consists  of  twelve  chapters, 
two  hundred  and  twenty-two  verses,  the  middle  of  which  is 
vi.  10.  It  is  a  dissertation  on  the  Highest  Good  (summum 
honum)  in  plain  prose,  without  any  attempt  at  ornamenta- 
tion or  poetical  symbolism,  an  imformal  philosopheme, 
hence  without  technical  terms,  and,  with  the  exception  of 
very  few  foreign  words,  purely  Hebrew.  Tradition  gives  its 
authorship  to  King  Solomon  ;  affirming  that  it,  like  the  other 

*  See  on  this  point  our  "  History  of  the  Hebrews'  Second  Com- 
monwealth," p.  80. 


128  Hagiogkaphy. 

works  of  Solomon,  was  compiled  in  its  present  form  by  the 
Men  of  King  Hezekiah  in  the  seventh  century  B.  C.  Moses 
Mendelssohn  divides  the  dissertation  into  the  following  thir- 
teen interconnected  essays:  (1)  Chapter  i.  1  to  i.  11,  intro- 
duction; (2)  from  i.  12  to  ii.  11 ;  (3)  from  ii.  12  to  ii.  26; 
(4)  from  ii.  27  to  iv.  3 ;  (5)  from  iv.  4  to  iv.  17 ;  (6)  from  iv. 
18  to  V.  19 ;  (7)  from  vi.  1  to  vii.  14  ;  (8)  from  vii.  15  to  viii. 
9  ;  (9)  from  viii.  10  to  ix.  12  ;  (10)  from  ix.  13  to  x.  15 ;  (11) 
from  X.  16  to  xi.  6 ;  (12)  from  xi.  7  to  xii.  7 ;  (13)  from  xii. 
8  to  the  end  of  the  book.  This  division  is  logical  as  far  as 
the  different  parts  are  concerned ;  each  presents  a  unity, 
according  to  Mendelssohn's  interpretation  ;  but  the  connec- 
tion of  the  various  parts  into  one  logical  unit  is  not  estab- 
lished. This  was  felt  by  the  Rabbis  of  the  Talmud,  who 
maintain  in  the  name  of  Aba  Areka  ( S'/ia66as  306)  that  it 
was  proposed  to  take  Koheleih  out  of  the  Canon,  "  because 
his  words  contradict  one  another ;  "  to  Avhich  is  added  in 
Vayikrah  Bahbah  (chapter  28)  by  Rabbi  Levi,  a  cotempo- 
rary  of  the  former  :  "  because  some  of  his  words  incline  to 
heresy  (as  if)  the  bands  were  loosened ;  there  is  no  justice 
and  no  judge."  It  was  not  done,  as  stated  in  the  Talmud, 
"because  the  beginning  and  the  end  thereof  are  words  of  the 
Thorah."  Evidently  those  ancient  savants  did  not  succeed 
in  discovering  a  logical  unity  in  Koheleih.  "  The  beginning 
and  the  end  thereof,"  on  the  merits  of  which  this  book  was 
retained  in  the  Canon,  can  not  refer  to  the  introductory  and 
closing  verses  of  the  book,  for  these  do  not  appear 
Solomonic.  The  whole  book,  from  i.  12  to  xii.  7,  is  written 
in  the  first  person,  Koheleth  speaking  to  the  reader ;  while 
the  first  twelve  and  the  last  seven  verses  are  in  the  third 
person,  the  editor  or  compiler  speaking  to  the  reader.  The 
closing  verses,  in  which  Koheleth,  the  proper  noun,  becomes 
hak-Koheleth,  the  common  noun,  and  in  which  the  compilers 
do  expressly  mention  themselves  (verse  11 )  as  HI^IDN  '''7^3, 
and  warn  the  young  (^J3)  against  making  many  books 
(verse  12),  could  only  be  the  postscript  of  the  Men  of 
Hezekiah,  or  of  the  compilers  of  the  third  canon.  The  same 
seems  to  be  the  case  with  the  eleven  introductory  verses, 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  129 

which  consist  only  of  general  statements  to  the  one  point, 
that  man's  deeds  are  without  any  effect  on  nature  or  man- 
kind ;  nothing  can  be  changed  in  the  world's  process  or 
man's  destiny.  "  There  is  nothing  new  under  the  sun." 
This,  however,  is  but  one  point  of  the  many,  and  not  even 
the  main  point  discussed  in  Koheleth — the  main  point  is 
the  summum  honum.  It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  first 
editor  or  compiler  of  the  Koheleth  manuscripts  knew  but 
those  portions  thereof  which  discuss  that  fatalistic  doctrine ; 
and  a  second  editor  or  compiler  added  thereto  such  other 
Koheleth  manuscripts,  which  complete  the  work  as  a 
philosopheme  on  the  suvimum  honum,  and  wrote  the  con- 
clusion of  the  book.  Abraham  Ibn  Ezra,  in  his  commentary 
to  Koheleth  (twelfth  Christian  century),  and  after  him  the 
philosophical  exegetists,  Levi  ben  Gershom,  Isaac  Abarbanel, 
Obadiah  Seporno,  Joseph  Ibn  Jochiah  and  others,  expounded 
Koheleth  and  attempted  to  harmonize  the  apparent  contra- 
dictions of  statements  and  doctrines  in  the  book,  without 
observing,  however,  that  the  introduction  does  not  corre- 
spond with  the  whole  book,  and  the  conclusion  can  not  be 
by  the  author  of  the  book. 

24.  The  cause  of  the  apparent  contradictions  in  Koheleth 
is  that  the  author  either  quotes  from  other  documents  or  re- 
duces to  writing  such  current  sentiments  which  he  discusses 
and  contravenes  from  his  standpoint  in  regard  to  the  sum- 
mum,  bonum,  and  either  the  compiler  or  the  transcriber  failed 
to  mark  those  passages,  so  they  stand  now  in  the  text  in 
contradiction  to  the  other  passages  thereof.  The  exegetists 
failed  to  distinguish  the  assumed  themes  from  the  argu- 
ments and  conclusions  of  the  author,  therefore  they  failed 
to  harmonize  the  statements  and  doctrines  of  Koheleth.  Its 
author  is  a  firm  monotheist,  the  ha-Elohim  is  his  designa- 
tion of  the  Deity.  He  believes  in  Providence,  which  has 
preordained  all  things  from  the  beginning,  and  believes  no 
less  in  the  freedom  of  man,  who  may  try  and  do  all  things 
which,  in  his  opinion,  may  lead  him  to  attain  the  summum 
honum.  He  believes  in  the  justice  of  God,  who  brings  to 
judgment  every  deed  of  man,  and  laments  over  the  injustice 


130  Hagiography. 

prevailing  in  human  government  in  consequence  of  man's 
free  will.  So  he  believes  in  creation  and  the  Creator's  wis- 
dom, who  has  made  everything  beautiful  in  its  time  and 
place  and  made  man  upright,  perfectly  prepared  to  attain 
the  highest  good,  and  believes  no  less  that  many  fail  in  ap- 
preciating God's  wisdom  and  their  own  aim  and  destiny  on 
account  of  their  ignorance  or  their  submission  to  the  lower 
passions.  The  author  clings  steadfastly  to  the  principle 
that  there  is  universal  necessity  in  nature  and  history  and 
individual  freedom  in  both.  He  believes  in  personal  im- 
mortality, "And  the  spirit  returns  to  God  who  hath  given 
it."  The  golden  mean  in  everything  is  his  moral  principle, 
and  in  this  he  finds  the  means  to  attain  the  summum  bonum. 
He  is  no  fatalist,  no  pessimist  and  no  pantheist.  From  the 
purely  religious  standpoint  of  Moses  and  the  Prophets  he 
argues  the  question  against  all  prevailing  beliefs  in  his  time, 
showing  not  only  their  inability  to  secure  the  summum 
bonum,  but  as  their  last  sequences  the  disirability  of  suicide, 
life  not  being  worth  li\dng ;  "  all  is  vanity  and  windy 
thought."  Yet  we  feel  and  know  that  human  nature  is  im- 
bued mth  the  desire  to  live  and  the  longing  after  happiness, 
consequently  he  is  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  his  stand- 
point is  THE  truth  from  which  man  can  reach  the  summum 
bonum.  Koheleth  is  apologetic  like  Job,  opposite  the  phil- 
osophical views  prevailing  in  his  age,  and  so  in  order  to 
understand  the  book  correctly  the  passages  must  be  divided 
into  the  assumed  themes  and  the  author's  arguments  and 
conclusions. 

25.  According  to  traditional  beliefs  King  Solomon  is  the 
author  of  Koheleth,  although  his  name  is  never  mentioned 
in  the  book.  The  heading  speaks  of  Koheleth  as  a  son  of 
David,  King  of  Jerusalem,  but  this  is  evidently  taken  from 
i.  12,  the  actual  beginning  of  the  book.  "  I,  Koheleth,  was 
King  over  Israel  in  Jerusalem,"  to  which  "  Son  of  David  " 
is  added,  and  for  which  no  authority  is  given.  The  author 
(i.  16  et  seq.)  speaks  of  his  great  wealth,  luxury,  power  and 
wisdom,  which  seems  to  point  to  King  Solomon,  yet  no 
name  is  mentioned,  neither  Solomon  nor  a  son  of  David. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  131 

"  Koheleth  "  is  no  name  of  a  person,  as  is  evident  from  the 
"  hak-Koheleth  "  (xii.  8).     There  is  no  evidence  in  tlie  book 
that  Solomon  was  its  author  or  that  he  was  a  son  of  David. 
The  question   always   remains  unanswered :      If  Solomon 
was  its  author,  why  is  his  name  not  given,  as  in  Proverbs 
and  Song  of  Songs?     The  entire  argument  of  Koheleth  is 
apologetic  of  the  Solomonic  principle  laid  down  in  Proverbs, 
that  the  fear  of  God,  the  theological  postulate,  is  the  safe 
foundation  upon  which  wisdom  or  human  intellect  must 
base  its  moral  doctrine  and.  regulate  its  conduct  in  order  to 
attain  the  summvm  bonum;  only  that  in  Proverbs  the  prin- 
ciple is  advanced  especially  in  regard  to  the  state  and  the 
ruler  or  rulers  thereof,  and  in  Koheleth  it  is  discussed  chiefly 
with  reference  to  the  individual  and  his  means  to  attain  the 
highest  good.      Therefore,  the  governing  power  of  wisdom 
is  here  considerably  modified  and  in  all  problems  of  morality 
the  golden  mean  is  recommended.     But  all  this  does  not 
prove  that  Solomon  or  a  son  of  David  was  its  author.     The 
King  of  Israel  in  Jerusalem  may  be  fictitious,  like  the  word 
Koheleth.  Nor  is  this  proved  by  those  passages  in  the  book 
which  point  to  Solomon's  disappointments  toward  the  close 
of  his  reign,  which  necessitated  a  modification  of  his  prin- 
ciple in  regard  to  wisdom ;  any  other  savant  or  reasoning 
prophet  may  just   as    well  have    referred   to  this  fact   to 
strengthen  the  argument  that  the  individual  wisdom  also, 
even  if  based  on  the  fear  of  God,  is  insufficient  in  all  cases  to 
reach  the   highest    good.     On   the   other  hand,   the   book 
aff'ords  no  direct  proof  against  the  authorship  of  Solomon. 
The    arguments   against   certain    Grecian    philosophemes, 
especially  against  Epicurism,  Skepticism,  the  self-sufficient 
Rationalism  of  Aristotle,  and  the  Pessimism  more  or  less  at 
the  bottom  of  all  Grecian  mythology  and  speculation,  is  no 
proof;  as  all  those  speculations  may  have  been  and  undoubt- 
edly  were    current  in  the  Orient  long  before   formal  phi- 
losophy utilized  them.     The  Syriac  and  Aryan  terms  prove 
nothing  against  the  time  of  Solomon,  as  we  have  noticed 
before.     The  absence  of  the  tetragrammaton,  the  covenant, 
and  congregation  of  Israel,  everything  that  is  specifically 


132  Hagiography. 

Hebrew,  Judaic  or  Israelitish  throughout  this  book  again 
proves  nothing,  as  it  evidently  was  not  written  for  Jew  or 
Gentile  especially — and  Solomon  was  the  king  of  a  large 
number  of  non-Israelites ;  it  is  an  argument  of  equal  force 
to  all  monotheists,  and  was  evidently  addressed  to  all  and 
not  to  the  Hebrews  only.  No  prophet  and  no  prophecy  is 
referred  to  in  Koheleth — this  again  looks  like  the  days  of 
Solomon — because  it  is  a  piece  of  reasoning  from  principle, 
fact  and  analogy,  which  has  nothing  in  common  with  prophet 
or  prophecy.  It  seems,  therefore,  correct  to  maintain  that 
the  Men  of  Hezekiah  did  compile  certain  writings  of  the 
Solomonic  age  addressed  to  the  congregation  called  "  Kohe- 
leth," as  the  term  signifies,  because  they  are  addressed  to 
the  individuals  to  unite  them  in  sentiments  to  a  congrega- 
tion of  similar  doctrines.  The  king's  name  was  not  given 
on  account  of  the  uncertainty  as  to  the  author.  Centuries 
after,  during  the  struggle  between  Grecism  and  Hebrewism, 
at  a  time  when  the  third  canon  was  compiled,  other  manu- 
scripts, believed  to  be  by  the  same  author,  were  added  to 
the  older  volume,  and  the  present  Book  of  Koheleth  received 
its  present  form.  Then  Koheleth  received  the  signification 
of  the  congregation  of  Israel  arguing  against  the  encroach- 
ments of  Grecism;  Sinai  versus  Olympus,  monotheism 
against  philosophy,  stern  righteousness  against  sensuality, 
a  life  of  joy  and  gladness  against  asceticism,  optimism 
against  pessimism,  with  the  golden  mean  everywhere.  If 
this  is  correct,  the  Book  of  Koheleth  received  its  present 
form  about  200  B.  C,  in  the  time  of  Antiochus  the  Great  in 
Syria,  and  the  boy  king  in  Egypt,  containing  materials  from 
the  time  of  Solomon,  if  not  entirely  from  himself,  as  com- 
piled by  the  Men  of  Hezekiah. 

26.  The  Book  or  scroll  of  Lamentations,  called  by  the 
rabbis  Kinnoth,  was  originally  called  Aichah,  according  to 
the  first  word  of  the  same,  as  it  is  called  now  and  is  desig- 
nated in  all  Hebrew  manuscripts  and  prints.  It  consists  of 
five  chapters,  three  of  which  begin  with  the  same  word 
Aichah,  divided  into  one  hundred  and  fifty-four  verses,  the 
middle  of  which  is  iii.  34.     These  five  chapters  are  five 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  133 

poems  apparently  independent  of  one  another,  the  first  two 
of  which  are  lamentations,  and  the  last  three  are  elegies  con- 
taining consolation.  Their  unity  is  (a)  in  the  subject,  the 
capture,  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  its  temple,  and  over- 
throw of  the  country  and  dissolution  of  the  nation.  The 
third  chapter,  although  it  chiefly  laments  the  sufferings  of 
the  author,  according  to  Abraham  Ibn  Ezra's  commentary, 
is  also  an  elegy  on  the  discomfited  and  exiled  Israel ;  and 
(&)  in  the  artistical  construction  of  these  poems.  Each 
chapter  consists  of  twenty-two  stanzas,  and  each  stanza  in 
the  first  four  chapters  begins  with  a  letter  of  the  Hebrew 
alphabet  in  the  usual  order,  only  in  chapters  ii.  and  iv.  the 
Pai  (5)  precedes  the  Ayim  (^),  otherwise  the  alphabetical 
acrostic  is  perfect.  In  the  third  chapter  there  are  three 
verses  to  each  letter,  beginning  with  the  same  letter,  and  in 
the  last  chapter  the  alphabetical  order  is  omitted,  but  the 
number  twenty-two  is  preserved.  In  meter,  the  first  and 
second  chapters  are  alike ;  each  stanza,  consisting  of  three 
lines,  each  line  of  three  or  two  feet  (words),  or  two  and 
three,  or  four  as  an  exception.  The  third  chapter  with  its 
threefold  alphabet  is  in  meter  somewhat  different,  its  lines 
— two  to  each  stanza — are  mostly  of  8-2  or  2-2.  The  fourth 
and  fifth  chapters  also  divide  each  stanza  in  two  lines,  each 
line  in  3-2  or  2-2  feet.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  we 
have  before  us  in  this  book  or  scroll  carefully  and  artistic  ■ 
ally  constructed  poetry  and  no  irregular  efi'usion  of  senti- 
ment and  thought  as  in  the  books  of  Jeremiah  or  Ezekiel. 
This  is  also  evident  from  the  numerous  metaphors,  similes, 
apostrophes  and  personifications  in  this  book.  As  a  poet- 
ical production  of  a  high  order  this  book  is  no  less  remark- 
able than  it  is  for  the  depth  and  warmth  of  its  patriotic 
sentiments  and  its  word  painting  of  the  profoundest  grief 
and  affliction  over  a  nation's  downfall  and  a  country's 
catastrophe.  The  destruction  of  neither  Troy  nor  Car- 
thage, Nineveh  nor  Babylon  produced  an  elegaic  monument 
of  similar  grandeur  and  sublimity. 

27.  Three   times   before   its   destruction   Jerusalem  was 
besieged  and  captured  by  the  Babylonians  supported  by 


134  Hagiogbaphy. 

Syrians,  Edomites,  Moabites  and  Amonites,  viz. :  under 
King  Jehoiakim  (2  Kings  xxiv.  1),  under  King  Jehoiachin 
(ibid.,  verses  11-16),  and  from  the  ninth  to  the  eleventh 
year  of  King  Zedekiah  (ibid.  xxv.  1).  The  second  king 
together  with  his  princes  and  high  dignitaries  was  carried 
into  captivity  (2  Kings  xxiv.;  2  Chronicles  xxxvi.), 
an4  the  last  king  was  deprived  of  his  eyesight  after 
his  children  had  been  slaughtered,  and  was  then  dragged 
into  captivity.  All  these  calamities  of  the  three  invasions 
and  their  destructive  effects  together  with  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  and  the  temple  are  lamented  in  the  three 
chapters  of  Lamentations,  beginning  with  the  word  Aichah, 
viz,,  the  first,  second  and  fourth,  evidently  blended  in  the 
poet's  mind  into  one  prolonged  catastrophe,  as  if  all  the 
disastrous  events  had  happened  simultaneously.  The  third 
chapter  is  the  elegy  of  the  author  written  in  the  first  person, 
in  which  he  sings  in  melancholy  strains  his  own  painful 
fate  in  that  time  of  disaster  and  defeat,  destruction  and 
annihilation,  together  with  the  sorrow  and  grief  which 
overwhelmed  the  wounded  patriot  at  the  sight  of  his  peo- 
ple's misery  and  his  country's  destruction,  rising,  however, 
from  under  the  thick  cloud  of  that  double  misery  to  the 
luminous  height  of  light,  consolation  and  hope,  with  his 
trust  in  God  and  his  grace.  It  seems  that  the  third  and 
fourth  chapters  should  be  reversed,  which  would  make  of 
the  four  chapters  a  continuous  elegy,  setting  forth,  in  the 
first  place,  the  greatness  of  the  nation's  calamity  and  disas- 
ter and  its  effect  on  the  poet's  mind ;  then  his  own  personal 
afflictions,  which  depress  and  deject  his  soul ;  and  then, 
notwithstanding  the  double  grief  and  the  hopeless  future 
before  him,  his  trust  in  God,  his  source  of  consolation,  and 
his  unshaken  faith  in  the  grace  of  the  Almighty.  As  the 
order  of  the  chapters  is  now,  it  seems  that  chapters  iv.  and 
V.  belong  to  another  author ;  one  who  not  only  mourns  over 
the  past  events,  but  also  laments  in  chapter  v.  the  present 
state  of  misery  and  the  cheerless  future  of  his  vanquished 
people  in  the  power  of  a  despotic  conqueror  and  fierce  ene- 
mies I  and  yet,  like  the  first  author,  he  rises  above  all  disas- 


pRONAos  TO  Holy  Writ.  135 

ter  and  benighting  prospect  of  the  future  to  consolation 
and  hope  by  and  with  his  faith  and  trust  in  God's  loving 
kindness,  with  which  the  fifth  chapter  closes  so  pathetic- 
ally. There  can  hardly  be  any  doubt  that  the  prophet 
Jeremiah  was  the  author  of  the  first  three  chapters  of 
Lamentations.  If  the  fourth  and  fifth  chapters  belong  to 
another  author  he  must  have  been  a  cotemporary  of  Jere- 
miah, as  none  but  an  eye-witness  could  produce  so  vivid 
and  impressive  a  description  of  any  event.  Therefore,  we 
may  set  the  date  of  Lamentations  between  586  and  560 
B.  C,  the  year  of  King  Jehoiachin's  release  from  prison  ;  for, 
after  that  event,  as  is  evident  from  Isaiah's  orations,  the 
feeling  of  pain  and  grief  over  the  nation's  fall  and  the  fate 
of  the  vanquished  could  not  have  been  as  fierce  and  oppres- 
sive any  longer  as  it  appears  in  the  closing  chapters  of 
Lamentations.  The  question,  if  Jeremiah  was  its  author, 
why  was  it  placed  in  the  third  and  not  in  the  second  canon  ? 
is  easily  answered,  viz  :  because  Lamentations  are  no  proph- 
ecies, and  the  second  is  the  prophetical  canon.  It  is  no 
less  easy  to  tell  when  he  wrote  these  elegies  viz  :  after  the 
captors  of  Jerusalem  had  taken  him  from  his  prison  and  he 
had  gone  along  with  other  prisoners  in  chains  as  far  as 
Ramah,  where  Nebuzradan  released  him  and  he  went  back 
to  Mizpah  and  staid  there  with  Gedaliah  till  he  was 
forced  to  go  with  the  assassins  to  Egypt,  which  was  at 
least  two  months  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  In  Ramah  he 
began  his  lamentations  (Jeremiah  ix.).  There  the  prophet- 
ical lyre  was  tuned  to  the  melancholy  strains  of  the  elegy 
(ibid.  xxxi.  15).  Hence  it  follows  that  Jeremiah  wrote  his 
Kinnoth  (his  former  Kinnoth  were  lost,  2  Chronicles  xxv.) 
in  the  months  of  Abh  and  Elul,  586  B.  C.  He  may  have 
written  the  last  chapters  after  his  return  from  Egypt,  when 
the  effects  of  the  conquest  had  become  most  bitterly  felt. 
28.  The  book  or  scroll  of  Esther  consists  of  ten  chapters 
of  one  hundred  and  sixty-seven  verses,  the  middle  of  which 
is  iv.  7.  It  is  a  prosaic,  well  constructed  narrative,  of  which 
tradition  maintains  it  was  written  by  the  Men  of  the  Great 
Synod  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     Abraham 


136  Hagiography. 

Ibn  Ezra  thinks  it  is  a  translation  from  a  Medo-Persian 
Chronicle.  It  is  just  as  well  possible  that  it  was  written  in 
Persia,  when  Antiochus  Epiphanes  invaded  that  country,  to 
encourage  the  rebellion  in  Judea,  and  the  Men  of  the  Great 
Synod  adopted  it  as  the  authentic  narrative  of  that  affair,  a 
number  of  which  were  in  circulation,  as  is  evident  from  the 
Greek  version,  the  two  Aramaic  versions,  and  the  narrative 
of  Josephus.  It  contains  an  episode  of  the  history  of 
Ahasuerus,  a  Medo-Persian  king,  who,  after  executing  his 
wife  Vashti,  selected  as  his  consort  out  of  many  maidens  a 
daughter  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  whose  name  was  Esther 
(a  star)  and  also  Hadassn  (a  myrtle).  She  was  an  orphan 
adopted  by  her  uncle,  Mordechai,  and,  like  him,  a  scion  of 
the  ancient  family  of  Kish,  who  was  also  the  father  of  King 
Saul.  Ahasuerus  knew  not  that  she  was  a  Jewess,  nor  that 
she  was  the  niece  of  Mordechai,  who  stood  in  some  intimate 
connection  with  the  royal  court.  The  king  had  a  favorite 
minister  whose  name  was  Haman,  a  scion  of  the  royal  house 
of  extinguished  Amalek.  He  came  in  conflict  with  Morde- 
chai, who  would  not  show  the  demanded  honors  to  the 
mighty  minister.  He  contracted  such  a  revengeful  hatred 
against  Mordechai  and  his  race  that  he  obtained  a  decree 
of  the  king  that  on  a  certain  day  in  the  month  of  Adar  all 
Hebrews  should  be  slain  by  the  populace  and  their  property 
to  be  free  booty  te  the  murderers.  The  decree  was  published, 
and,  according  to  the  laws  of  that  country,  could  never  be 
revoked.  By  the  influence,  however,  of  Mordechai  upon 
Queen  Esther,  and  by  her  intercession  with  the  king,  the 
murderous  scheme  was  defeated,  the  mighty  misister  was 
deposed  and  put  to  death,  and  the  Hebrews  were  enabled  to 
defend  themselves  againt  their  assailants.  The  excited 
populace,  with  a  prospect  of  rich  booty,  rose  on  that  given 
day,  according  to  the  king's  decree,  to  slaughter  and  spoliate 
the  unprotected  Hebrews,  who,  however,  were  prepared  to 
meet  their  enemies,  and  made  a  great  slaughter  among  them 
in  the  city  of  Susa,  and  chiefly  in  the  adjacent  provinces 
Mordechai  became  the  prime  minister  of  the  king ;  in  con- 
sequence thereof,  and  perhaps  chiefly  on  account  of  their 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  137 

heroic  defense,  the  JeWs  became  much  more  respected 
among  the  populace  than  before.  The  day  after  this,  viz., 
the  14th  day  of  Adar,  and  in  the  city  of  Susa  also  the  15th 
day  of  Adar,  were  made  days  of  festivities  and  rejoicings, 
called  "  Purim."  By  order  and  request  of  Esther  and  Mor- 
dechai  the  Purim  was  established  among  all  the  Israelites  in 
all  countries.  That  the  Purim  existed  before  the  book  of 
Esther  was  written  is  evident  from  the  book  itself  (ix.  9-32. ) 
That  this  day  of  feasting  and  rejoicing  was  generally  cele- 
brated among  the  Israelites  is  evident  from  2  Maccabees  i., 
the  account  of  Josephus,  its  mention  in  Meguilloth  Thanith, 
quoted  also  in  the  Talmud  ( Thanith  186  and  Meguillah  5c), 
and  from  the  rabbis  of  the  first  century,  from  and  after 
Rabbi  Jochanan  ben  Saccai,  who  knew  of  special  laws  and 
regulations  concerning  the  Purim  day,  and  the  reading  of 
the  Esther  book  on  that  day.  The  feast  itself  is  consider- 
able testimony  in  favor  of  the  fact  related  in  the  book,  as 
feasts,  like  fasts  instituted  by  a  nation,  especially  by  Israel, 
always  commemorate  a  historical  occurrence.  Yet  if  the 
Purim  had  been  instituted  soon  after  Ezra  and  Nehemiah, 
it  might  be  maintained  that  it  was  adopted  from  the  Per- 
sian heathens ;  but  when  the  Hebrews  had  become  most 
zealous  and  scrupulous  observers  of  the  laws  of  Moses  in 
every  detail,  as  they  certainly  were  from  and  after  the  fourth 
century  B.  C,  such  an  adoption  was  clearly  impossible. 
The  occurrence  narrated  in  this  book  could  not  have  hap- 
pened prior  to  Darius  Hystaspis,  because  under  his  reign 
the  institution  of  the  "  Seven  Princes  of  Persia  and  Media  " 
(Esther  i.  14)  was  established.  It  could  not  have  occurred 
under  Darius,  Xerxes  or  Artaxerxes,  as  the  authors  of  the 
books  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah  and  Chronicles  must  have  noticed 
the  important  event  and  prominent  persons.  The  next  fol- 
lowing three  kings  of  Persia  reigned  together  but  twenty 
years,  with  none  of  whom  the  dates  of  Esther  correspond, 
nor  do  they  correspond  to  the  reign  of  the  two  last  kings 
who  reigned  together  but  two  years.  There  are  left  but  Ar- 
taxerxes Mnemon,  4'H  to  359  B.  C,  and  Darius  Ochus,  359 
to  338  B.  C.     We  know  of  the  former  that  during  the  last 


138  Hagiogeaphy. 

ten  years  of  his  reign  a  fine  of  fifty  shekels  for  each  lamb 
sacrificed  in  the  temple  was  imposed  upon  the  Hebrews, 
and  that  was  certainly  not  the  Ahasuerus  of  Esther  who 
was  so  much  influenced  by  Mordechai  and  Esther.*  There- 
fore Darius  Ochus  only  could  be  that  Ahasuerus.  To  him 
and  his  character  every  line  and  date  fits  exactly.  He  was 
an  enemy  of  the  Hebrews  and  Phoenicians  in  the  first  year 
of  his  reign.  He  made  the  feasts  described  in  Esther,  slew 
eighty  of  his  brothers,  and  became  the  indolent,  sensuous 
and  foolish  despot,  Ahasuerus.  Besides,  he  did  not  call 
himself  Darius  ;  he  called  himself  Artaxerxes,  son  of  Arta- 
xerxes,  and  so  does  the  Syriac  translator  call  (Esther  i.) 
Ahasuerus.  The  Purim  story  could  not  have  occurred  prior 
to  345  B.  C,  and  then  there  was  no  longer  the  barest  possi- 
bility for  Hebrews  to  adopt  a  Heathen  festival,  nor  to  invent 
such  a  story  on  the  Persian  court.  If  it  had  been  a  fiction 
it  must  have  been  located  in  India,  Ethiopia  or  the  Desert 
of  Arabia.  Susa,  the  Persian  court,  and  all  about  them 
were  too  well  known  in  Jerusalem  to  be  thus  misrepresented. 
It  is  certain,  from  the  book  itself,  that  the  Haman  edict  was 
of  a  local  nature,  not  for  the  127  provinces,  and  the  whole 
occurrence  transpired  in  Susa  and  adjacent  country.  There- 
fore, nothing  was  known  about  it  in  Jerusalem  or  the  other 
cities  and  provinces,  and  so  the  Purim  feast  was  instituted 
in  Susa  first  and  then  by  the  influence  of  Queen  Esther  and 
Mordechai  also  in  Jerusalem,  and  from  thence  it  spread  all 
over  the  dispersed  Israel  after  the  advent  of  Alexander  the 
Great.  The  book  of  Esther,  however,  it  seems  was  written 
about  160  B.  C. 

29.  The  Book  of  Daniel  is  before  us  in  twelve  chapters 
(modern  division),  seven  Sedarim  (ancient  division),  357 
verses,  the  half  of  which  is  v.  30.  It  is  Hebrew  from  i.  1  to 
ii.  4  and  viii.  to  the  end  of  the  book ;  the  part  from  ii.  4  to 
vii.  28  in  Aramaic,  as  it  is  called  there  (ii.  4),  or  Eastern 
Syriac.  Two  peculiarities  of  this  book  are,  that  from  i.  to 
vii.  it  records  disconnected  events,  one    in  every  chapter, 

♦See  our  History  of  the  Hebrews'  Second  Commonwealth,  p.  29-31. 


Peonaos  to  Holy  Writ.  139 

and  each  is  a  miracle ;  and  from  viii.  to  xii.  it  is  a  record  of 
apocalyptic  prophecies.  In  the  first  part  the  author  speaks 
of  Daniel  in  the  third  person,  and  in  the  second  part  Daniel 
appears  as  the  author,  and  always  speaks  of  himself  in  the 
first  person.  This,  aside  from  the  two  languages  of  the  book, 
suggests  that  it  was  not  written  by  one  author. 

There  could  be  no  doubt  that  Daniel  really  existed  in 
Babylon  during  the  exile,  a  great  and  wise  man,  as  outside 
of  this  book  we  find  his  name  in  Ezekiel  (xiv.  14  andxxviii. 
3)  among  the  most  righteous  and  the  wisest  of  his  age,  and 
in  the  Grecian  version  of  his  book,  in  connection  with  the 
narratives  of  Susanna  and  Bel  and  the  Dragon.  Nor  could 
it  well  be  doubted  that  this  Daniel  did  write,  when  Josephus 
reports  (Antiq.  x,  viii.  5),  that  one  of  Daniel's  books  was 
shown  in  the  temple  of  Jerusalem  to  Alexander  the  Great, 
and  further  on  ( x.  xi.  7 )  speaks  of  several  books  of  Daniel, 
which,  it  appears,  had  been  extant  in  the  time  of  Josephus. 
The  question  would  only  be,  did  he  write  this  book,  or  any 
parts  thereof  ?  The  Talmud  states,  the  men  of  the  Great 
Synod  wrote  it,  but  this  we  know  may  refer  only  to  the 
compilation  of  the  book  as  in  the  case  of  Ezekiel. 

The  narrative  part  of  Daniel  was  certainly  not  Avritten  in 
Judea,  it  being  in  diction  and  description  by  far  superior  to 
any  Aramaic  production  of  Palestine.  It  was  certainly 
written  where  that  language  was  the  vernacular  and  had 
skilled  literati,  which  was  the  case  in  Babylon  before  its  fall. 
Each  of  those  episodes  closes  with  a  special  glorification  of 
the  God  of  Israel,  so  that  they  appear  to  be  myths,  legends 
or  allegories  based  on  facts,  to  impress  the  reader  with  the 
special  information  that  Nebuchadnezzar,  Belshazzar  and 
Darius  praised  and  glorified  the  God  of  Israel,  seeing  as 
they  did  that  the  Lord  wrought  such  extraordinary  miracles 
for  his  people,  seemingly  abandoned  in  captivity.  Taken 
in  this  sense,  Daniel  may  have  written  these  and  many  sim- 
ilar episodes,  as  the  author  of  the  book  of  Jonah  did  with 
similar  good,  humane  and  patriotic  intentions.  The  Tal- 
mud in  Chelek  takes  a  similar  view,  at  least  in  one  case, 
the  three  men  thrown  into  the  fiery  furnace,  and  the  dead  that 


140  Hagiography. 

Ezekiel  revived  in  the  same  valley  of  Dura.  This  view  of 
the  subject  anyhow  accounts  for  the  strange  accident,  that 
none  of  the  authors  of  that  or  any  subsequent  age  refers  to 
those  astounding  miracles,  and  that  Nebuchadnezzar,  who 
thus  glorified  the  God  of  Israel,  did  not  release  King  Jehoi- 
achin  from  his  prison. 

The  proj^hetical  portion  of  Daniel,  from  chapter  viii.  to  xi., 
was  certainly  not  written  in  Babylon.  Had  it  been  written 
there  during  the  captivity  it  must  have  become  known 
among  the  exiles  and  its  author  must  have  taken  a  high  rank 
among  the  prophets  as  well  as  Ezekiel,  Haggai,  Zechariah 
and  Malachi  did,  when  the  prophetical  Canon  was  estab- 
lished by  the  Men  of  the  Great  Synod,  and  the  book  could 
not  have  been  placed  among  the  volumes  of  Hagiography,  as 
was  actually  done.  This  part  of  the  book,  together  with 
the  first  chapter  to  ii.  4,  which  is  an  introduction,  and  chap- 
ter xii.,  which  is  a  resume  and  conclusion  of  it,  bears  strong 
imprints  of  Essenean  doctrine,  as  reported  by  Josephus. 
This  sect  at  its  inception  was  certainly  identical  with  the 
Hassidim  of  1  Maccabees,  the  main  support  of  the  Macca- 
bees in  their  great  struggle  against  Syria.  This  leads  us 
directly  to  the  time  when  the  Hebrew  portion  of  Daniel 
was  written,  to  the  occurrences  of  which  in  the  time  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  and  the  victories  of  the  Maccabees, 
all  those  prophecies  point.* 

30.  The  seventh  chapter  of  Daniel  reports  a  dream  of  the 
author  which  one  of  the  bystanders  (verse  16)  in  that  dream 
expounded.  Both  the  dream  and  its  explanation  are  so 
sublime,  picturesque  and  mystic  that  almost  any  part  of 
history,  or  the  entire  historical  process  of  humanity,  could 

*  The  seventy  weeks  of  Daniel,  about  which  so  much  was  guessed 
and  written,  begin  with  the  first  exile  of  the  Israelites  to  Babylon, 
when  King  Menassah  was  carried  to  Babylon  a  vanquished  captive 
(2  Chronicles  xxxiii.  11).  That  was  the  beginning  of  Israel's  down- 
fall and  loss  of  independence  and  nationality,  from  which  it  never 
recovered  till  after  the  victories  of  the  Maccabees,  which  established 
again  the  independence  of  Israel,  in  round  numbers  seven  times 
seventy  years  after  that  first  catastrophe. 


Peonaos  to  Holy  Wkit.  141 

be  discovered  in  it,  although  the  author  evidently  intended 
to  prophesy  no  more  than  the  end  of  Babylon's  power  and 
sovereignty.  This  is  undoubtedly  the  part  of  the  book  of 
Daniel  shown  to  Alexander  in  the  temple  in  which  the 
priests  discovered  the  prophecy  of  the  Macedonians' 
victories  and  conquests.  This  very  fact  may  have  started 
the  belief  among  the  expounders  of  the  ancient  oracles 
that  Daniel's  predictions  in  that  chapter  reach  to  and  far 
beyond  Alexander.  When  Antiochus  Epiphanes  began  his 
work  of  oppression,  and  schemed  extermination  in  Judea,  one 
of  the  Essenean  or  Hassidim  patriots,  perhaps  the  deposed 
high  priest,  Onias,  or  Mattathia  himself,  or  his  younger  co- 
temporary,  Jose  ben  Joezer,  wrote  the  introduction  and  the 
Hebrew  commentary  to  the  book  of  Daniel,  showing  that 
his  prophecies  refer  to  this  age  and  its  calamities,  this 
struorsle  and  its  victorious  outcome,  the  fall  and  the  rise  of 
Israel,  the  desecration  and  the  consecration  of  its  sanctuary 
and  priesthood  —  he  calls  the  high  priest  Messiah  and 
prince — the  end  of  servitude  and  the  resurrection  of  Israel's 
sovereignty.  With  this  commentary,  introduction  and  con- 
clusion, the  book  was  circulated  among  the  patriots,  to  fire 
the  souls  with  glowing  patriotism  and  courage,  and  it  was  re- 
ceived and  read  with  enthusiasm,  and  did  well  its  intended 
work.  This  procured  for  the  book  of  Daniel  in  this  form  a 
place  in  the  Canon  among  the  Hagiography,  which  was  es- 
tablished after  this  event.  We  place,  therefore,  the  Aramic 
portion  into  the  year  540  B  C,  and  the  Hebrew  portion 
into  the  year  170  B.  C,  with  Daniel  as  the  author  of  the  for- 
mer and  perhaps  Jose  ben  Joezer  of  the  latter.  He  being  at 
the  head  of  the  Synod  the  tradition  correctly  maintains 
that  the  Men  of  the  Great  Synod  wrote  or  rather  finished  and 
edited  the  book  of  Daniel. 

31.  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  were  taken  as  one  book  also  by 
the  authors  of  the  Massorah.  The  two  books,  as  they  are 
before  us,  consist  of  Ezra,  ten  chapters,  and  Nehemiah, 
thirteen  chapters  (modern  division).  In  the  Massorah 
both  books  are  quoted  together  as  having  ten  Sedarim 
(ancient  division),  688  verses,  the  middle  of  which  is  Nehe- 


142  Hagiography. 

miah  iii.  32.  The  Septuagint  has  three  Esdras,  viz. :  i. 
Esdras  which  is  apocryphal  and  is  neither  mentioned  nor 
quoted  in  any  of  the  Biblical  or  Rabbinical  sources;  ii. 
Esdras  (in  some  MSS.  of  the  Septuagint  i.  Esdras)  is 
identical  with  the  canonical  Ezra,  and  iii.  Esdras  with  the 
canonical  Nehemiah.  That  this  division  in  the  Septuagint 
is  recent  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  neither  the  Massorah 
nor  the  Talmud  knew  of  it.  Chapters  iii.  and  iv.  of  the 
apocryphal  book  are  original,  were  adopted  by  Josephus 
(Antiquities  xiv.  5  and  xi.  2)  and  contain  sufficient  internal 
evidence,  that  the  author  was  an  African  Hebrew,  perhaps 
identical  with  the  author  of  II.  Maccabees,  or  with  that 
Aristobul  who  wrote  commentaries  for  a  king  of  Egypt  in 
the  second  century  B.  C* 

32.  The  contents  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  are  episodes  of 
Israel's  history  536  to  423  B.  C,  as  follows  : 

Chapter  i.  (Ezra)  begins  with  the  closing  verses  of 
Chronicles,  the  proclamation  of  Cyrus  to  the  exiled  Hebrews 
to  return  to  their  ancient  homes  and  to  rebuild  the  temple 
of  Jerusalem,  those  remaining  in  the  Medo-Persian  Empire 
to  furnish  them  with  substantial  means,  and  the  vessels  of 
gold  and  silver  taken  from  the  temple  now  returned  to  them. 

Chapter  ii.  A  register  of  the  families  returning  with  Zeru- 
babel  and  Joshua,  the  high  priest,  their  arrival  in  Palestine. 

Chapter  in.  The  erection  of  the  altar  in  Jerusalem ; 
reintroduction  of  the  Mosaic  cult ;  celebration  of  the  feasts 
on  the  first  and  fifteenth  days  of  the  seventh  month ;  prepa- 
rations for  the  building  of  the  temple  and  placing  the 
foundation  stone. 

Chapter  iv.  The  Samaritans  being  refused  co-operation 
in  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple,  succeed  in  obtaining  an 
interdict  from  the  Persian  court  under  Cyrus  and  his  suc- 


*  See  our  History  of  the  Hebrews'  Second  Commonwealth,  pp. 
89,  131  e.  s.  There  exists  in  Latin  a  fourth  book  of  Ezra,  or  Reve- 
lations of  Ezra,  which  belongs  to  the  apocalyptic  literature  in  the 
time  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  without  any  claim  to  his- 
torical authenticity. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Wkit.  143 

cessors,  Cambyses  and  Smerdes,*  and  the  work  was  inter- 
rupted. 

Chapter  v.  Haggai  and  Zechariah,  the  prophets,  encour- 
age Zerubabel  and  Joshua  to  proceed  with  the  building, 
begiQning  of  the  reign  of  Darius  II.,  they  do ;  Tatnai  and 
others  oppose  it  and  write  a  letter  to  Darius  to  enforce  the 
interdiction. 

Chapter  vi.  Darius  finds  in  Ecbatana  the  original  edict 
of  Cyrus,  ordains  the  completion  of  the  temple,  which  is 
completed  the  third  day  of  Adar  in  the  sixth  year  of  Darius 
II. ;  the  temple  is  dedicated  ;  the  first  Passover  is  celebrated 
by  the  returning  exiles.  This  ends  the  first  part  of  the 
book.     The  second  part  begins  fifty-eight  years  later. 

Chapter  vii  Artaxerxes  sends  Ezra  with  a  second 
colony,  and  gifts  for  the  temple,  to  Jerusalem,  appoints  him 
Chief  Judge  and  promulgator  of  the  Law  in  all  provinces 
west  of  the  Euphrates,  with  sufficient  executive  authority. 

Chapter  viii.  Register  of  the  families  returning  with 
Ezra,  their  journey  and  arrival  in  Jerusalem,  delivery  of 
the  holy  vessels  and  gifts. 

Chapter  ix.  The  princes  accuse  their  brethren  of  having 
taken  foreign  wives  ;  Ezra's  prayer  and  address. 

Chapter  x.  Ezra  convenes  a  general  meeting,  to  remedy 
this  evil,  a  representative  body  is  appointed ;  the  names  of 
the  main  persons  guilty  of  that  transgression  are  ascertained 
and  registered.     Here  the  book  of  Ezra  closes  abruptly. 

Nehemiah  i.  opens  thirteen  years  after  Ezra's  coming  to 
Jerusalem  with  Hanani  reporting  to  Nehemiah  the  deplor- 
able condition  of  Jerusalem;  Nehemiah's  prayer. 

Chapter  ii.  He  asks  permission  of  the  king  to  visit  his 
country;  he  is  appointed  Pasha,  and  starts  on  his  journey, 
arrives  in  Jerusalem,  inspects  at  night  the  walls  of  the  city, 

*  Verses  6  and  7  they  are  called  cmitt'HX  and  xnB'B'nmX,  and  the 
former  can  not  be  identical  with  his  namesake  in  the  book  of 
Esther,  nor  the  latter  with  xncCTin"!}*  or  Artaxerxes  in  chapter  7. 
It  seems,  therefore,  that  those  kings  had  different  names  in  the 
Aramaic  and  Persian,  as  is  evident  partly  from  the  Persian  sources 
and  the  inscriptions,  and  Herodotus  Grecised  the  one  or  the  other. 


144  Hagiography. 

tells  the  rulers  his  mission,  is  scorned  by  Sanbelat,  Tobiah 
and  Geshem. 

Chapter  iii.  The  building  of  the  walls  of  Jerusalem. 

Chapter  iv.  Tribulations  and  hostilities  against  which 
he  contended. 

Chapter  v.  Liberating  the  poor  and  enslaved ;  his  own 
disinterestedness  and  self-sacrificing  work. 

Chapter  vi.  Dissensions,  tribulations  and  hostilities  at 
home  and  from  abroad  are  overcome. 

Chapter  vii.  Military  organization  and  orders  for  the 
protection  of  the  city  ;  reviewing  and  completing  the  register 
of  the  families  that  had  returned  from  Babylon. 

Chapter  viii.  Presenting,  reading  and  expounding  to 
the  people  the  Law  of  Moses  on  the  first  day  of  the  seventh 
month  by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah ;  celebration  of  the  Feast  of 
Tabernacles. 

Chapter  ix.  Second  public  meeting  and  reading  of  the 
Law ;  address  of  the  Levites. 

Chapter  x.  Solemn  acceptance  of  the  Law  of  Moses  as 
the  law  of  the  newly  organized  State,  a  document  signed  by 
the  representative  Levites,  Rulers  and  Priests,  and  confirmed 
by  an  oath;  ordinances  added  to  the  Law  by  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah. 

Chapter  xi.  The  names  of  the  men  who  moved  from  the 
country  into  Jerusalem ;  organization  of  the  Levites ;  ap- 
pointment of  Patachiah  as  the  king's  agent ;  the  districts 
of  the  country. 

Chapter  xii.  Another  and  later  register  of  priests  and 
Levites ;  the  dedication  of  the  walls  of  Jerusalem.  This 
ends  the  account  of  Nehemiah's  twelve  years'  administra- 
tion. He  returns  to  Susa,  comes  back  to  Jerusalem  in  424 
or  423  and  then  occurs  what  is  narrated  in  chapter  xiii. 

33.  The  language  in  these  two  books  is  the  plain  Hebrew 
prose  with  the  exception  of  the  official  documents  from  the 
Persian  court  or  addressed  to  it,  which  are  Aramaic.  Very 
few  Aramisms  are  in  the  Hebrew  portions,  except  the  names 
of  persons,  places,  coins,  official  documents  and  offices. 
Some  of  the  Hebrew  pieces  like  Ezra  ix    6-15 ;  Nehemiah 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  145 

i.  5-11 ;  ix.  8-37,  although  full  of  reminiscences,  sound  clas- 
sically pure.  The  diction  gives  us  no  points  on  hand  to  as- 
certain when  these  books  were  written.*  It  is  certain  that 
the  first  part  of  Ezra,  including  the  seventh  chapter  to  verse 
27,  was  written  prior  to  the  next  part.  It  is  a  mere  compilation 
of  documents  which  must  have  been  preserved  in  the  temple. 
It  is  written  all  in  the  third  person,  the  author  never  speaks 
of  himself.  He  narrates  briefly  in  chapter  vii.  1-10,  what  is 
actually  narrated  in  chapter  viii.,  so  that  it  does  not  seem 
that  one  author  wrote  both,  and  besides,  he  describes  and 
lauds  Ezra  (vii.  6,  10)  in  a  manner  which  Ezra  would  not 
have  said  of  himself.  He  makes  Ezra  a  son  of  Sheraiah, 
the  last  high  priest  in  the  Temple  of  Solomon,  slain  after 
its  destruction  by  Nebuchadnezzar  (2  Kings  xxv.  18;  Jere- 
miah lii.  24),  whose  great  grandson  he  could  hardly  have 
been,  as  Ezra  came  to  Jerusalem  128  years  after  the  death 
of  Sheraiah.  Whether  it  was  the  intention  of  the  writer  to 
suggest  that  Ezra  was  the  descendant  of  the  last  high  priest 
and  the  lawful  heir  by  the  right  of  primogeniture  and  the 
Joshua  dynasty  was  a  second  line  by  Jehozadek ;  or  what- 
ever other  intention  he  had ;  thus  much  is  sure  that  Ezra 
would  not  have  denied  his  father.  The  same  author  does 
a  similar  thing,  and  it  seems  for  the  same  reason,  with 
Zerubabel,  whom  he  calls  son  of  Shealthiel,  when  he  actually 
was  the  son  of  Pedaiah,  but  the  former  was  the  second  son 
of  King  Jehoiachin,  Assur  was  the  first  born  (1  Chron.  iii. 
17,  18). 

The  next  parts  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  from  vii.  5  to 
the  end  of  the  second  book,  are  purely  Hebrew  and  in  the 

*The  supposition  of  some  critics,  that  the  King  of  Persia  is  called 
(Ezra  vi.  22)  "King  of  Ashshur"  (Assyria),  points  to  the  time  of 
the  Seleucidic  kings — provided  "  Ashshur  "  signifies  Syria,  which 
is  never  the  case — is  a  mistaken  notion,  as  Cyrus  was  also  King  of 
Assyria,  and  in  that  passage  is  also  referred  to  the  exiles  of  the 
children  of  Israel  from  Assyria  and  the  proselytized  Gentiles  (verse 
21)  after  the  exiles  from  Babylon  in  verse  19;  the  author  calls 
Cyrus  King  of  Assyria.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  many  of 
the  northern  tribes  also  returned  with  Judah  and  Benjamin. 


146  Hagiography. 

first  person,  the  authors  narrate  their  own  stories  in  their 
own  words.  These  portions  of  the  book  present  themselves 
as  the  original  writings  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  and  there 
exists  no  reason  whatever  to  doubt  it.  Nehemiah  vii.  5  e.  s. 
is  not  identical  with  Ezra  ii.,  the  two  accounts  differ  in  the 
various  numbers  of  the  men  belonging  to  each  family 
returning  from  Babylon,  although  they  agree  in  giving  the 
sum  total,  yet  it  seems  evident  that  both  accounts  could 
not  have  been  written  by  the  same  author.  Nehemiah  viii., 
ix.  and  x.,  different  entirely  in  diction  from  the  rest  of  the 
book,  is  an  official  document,  written  by  an  eye-witness  of 
that  important  affair  (See  I^TOJ^  and  the  following  verbs  in 
chapter  x.).     Chapter  xiii.  is  again  Nehemiah's  own. 

34.  It  is  evident  that  the  first  part  of  Ezra  (i.-vii.)  was 
compiled  by  an  earlier  historian  than  the  rest  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah,  and  not  long  after  the  arrival  of  Ezra  in  Jeru- 
salem. It  can  not  belong  to  the  author  of  Chronicles, 
although  this  latter  book  was  known  when  Nehemiah  xii. 
23  was  written,  the  Sepher  Dibre  Hayamim  is  expressly 
referred  to.  Nor  can  it  be  questionable  that  the  author  of 
Nehemiah  xi.  and  xii.  was  the  compiler  of  the  books  of 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  as  they  are  now  in  the  Canon.  This 
compiler  must  have  flourished  about  350  B.  C,  as  he  men- 
tions the  six  high  priests  from  Joshua  to  Jaddua  (xii.  10, 
11),  and  we  know  that  the  third  was  in  office  in  the  time  of 
Nehemiah  (iii.  20),  and  from  Josephus  that  the  last  was 
still  alive  when  Alexander  the  Great  appeared  before  the 
■walls  of  Jerusalem.  In  the  Talmud,  however,  it  is  main- 
tained that  Simon  the  Just  was  that  high  priest.  If  this 
passage  is  not  a  later  addition,  the  two  books  could  not 
have  been  compiled  long  before  350  B.  C,  about  sixty  to 
seventy  years  after  the  death  of  Nehemiah,  in  the  time  of 
Darius  Ochus,  whose  name  seems  especially  to  be  men- 
tioned xi.  22,  and  he  reigned  from  359-337  B.  C.  But  then 
it  seems  strange  that  this  compiler  betrays  no  knowledge 
of  the  three  great  events  which  occurred  prior  to  350  B.  C, 
viz  :  the  building  of  the  temple  on  Mt.  Guerizim,  the  high 
priest  John  slaying  his  brother  Jesus  in  the  temple,  and  the 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  147 

Haman  persecution  under  King  Ahasueros.  It  would  seem, 
therefore,  that  the  Darius  in  Nehemiah  refers  to  Darius 
Nothus,  who  reigned  from  423  to  404  B.  C,  and  the  passage 
of  the  six  high  priests  is  either  a  later  addition,  or  the  Tal- 
mud has  the  correct  tradition,  viz  :  that  the  grandson  of 
Jaddua,  Simon  the  Just,  was  the  high  priest  who  received 
Alexander  the  Great.  Simon  died  292  B  C,  after  a  reign 
of  forty  years.  His  father  reigned  thirty  years  ;  this  brings 
Jaddua  down  to  the  year  362  B.  C.  If  so,  Ezra  and  Nehe- 
miah were  compiled  during  the  life-time  of  Jaddua  at  any 
time  between  3J)0  and  360  B.  C,  within  a  few  decades  after 
the  death  of  Nehemiah,  prior  to  the  fratricide  in  the  temple 
which  occurred  in  372. 

35.  Chronicles  i.  and  ii.  is  before  us  in  29  and  36  chapters 
(modern  division),  25  Sedarim  (ancient  division),  1,656 
verses,  the  half  of  which  is  I.  Chronicles  xxvii.  25.  The  con- 
tents of  this  book  are  I.  Chronicles  i.  to  viii.,  the  genealogy 
of  the  principal  families  in  Israel,  beginning  with  Adam 
and  continuing  to  the  Babylonian  exile,  with  many  histor- 
ical notes  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  Bible. 

1  Chronicles  ix.  The  families  living  in  Jerusalem  before 
its  destruction,  together  with  the  offices  of  the  various 
Levitical  families,  and  closing  with  the  genealogy  of  King 
Saul. 

1  Chronicles  x.  The  end  of  King  Saul  according  to  the 
Book  of  Samuel. 

1  Chronicles  xi.  to  xxix.  is  the  history  of  David  as  King 
of  all  Israel,  according  to  the  Book  of  Samuel,  with  many 
additions  and  omissions,  but  no  contradiction  of  facts. 

2  Chronicles  i.  to  ix.  is  the  history  of  Solomon  accord- 
ing to  the  Book  of  Kings,  with  many  additions  and  omis- 
sions, and  no  contradiction  of  facts. 

2  Chronicles  x.  The  division  of  the  kingdom  in  Judah 
and  Israel,  Rehoboam  and  Jeroboam. 

2  Chronicles  xi.  to  the  end  of  the  book  narrates  the  his- 
tory of  the  Kings  of  Judah  to  586  B.  C,  omitting  the  history 
of  the  prophets  and  the  Kings  of  Israel,  adding  to  the 
history  of  the  temple  and  its  priesthood,  and  closing  with  a 


148  Hagiography. 

brief  reference  to  the  Babylonian  captivity  and  the  edict  of 
Cyrus  536  B.  C. 

As  the  author  of  Kings  wrote  chiefly  the  history  of  Israel 
and  the  prophets  with  mere  references  to  the  Kings  of 
Judah,  the  temple  and  its  servants,  so  the  author  of  Chron- 
icles wrote  chiefly  that  part  of  history  which  the  former 
omitted.  He  evinces  no  animosity  to  Israel,  and  even 
records  of  it  deeds  of  magnanimity  (2  Chron.  xxv.  17-24; 
xxviii.  8-15).  He  accounts  for  his  additions  to  the  books 
of  Samuel  and  Kings  by  pointing  to  the  ancient  documents 
before  him  in  their  original  form  as  they  were  before  the 
authors  of  the  former  historical  books,  the  public  records 
and  the  books  and  scrolls  of  prophets  as  well,  to  which  he 
invariably  refers,  except  in  the  historical  notes  contained 
in  the  genealogies  (chapter  i.-viii).  This  part  of  the  book, 
however,  is  ascribed  to  Ezra,  and  must  be  considered  sepa- 
rately. That  his  additions  are  historically  correct  is  proved 
by  his  story  of  King  Manassah's  captivity  in  Babylon,* 
which  is  omitted  in  Kings,  and  was  found  noticed  in  the 
Babylonian  inscriptions. 

36.  Characteristic  of  Chronicles'  additions  to  Samuel  and 
Kings  is : 

(a)  The  author's  endeavors  to  rouse  patriotism  in  the 
hearts  of  his  people,  encouraging  the  exiles  to  return  to 
Palestine,  and  the  returned  to  be  faithful  and  hopeful  in 
their  work  of  reconstruction.  In  this  particular  point  he 
re-echoes  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah  (xxx.  and  xxxi.),  and 
he  makes  mention  of  him  (2  Chron.  xxxv.  25)  and  of  his 
prophecies  (ibid,  xxxvi.  21,  22).  He  re-echoes  also  the 
prophecies  of  Ezekiel  (xxxvi.  and  xxxvii.  especially)  and 
does  not  mention  him  nor  Daniel,  who  must  have  flourished 
prior  to  the  issue  of  the  edict  of  Cyrus,  with  reference  to 
which  Chronicles  closes.  This  omission  only  proves  that 
its  author  writing  from  existing  written  records  and  books 
only,  to  which  he  always  refers,  had  no  knowledge  of  the 

*  See  Schrader's  "  Die  Keilinschriften  und  das  Alte  Testa- 
ment," page  366. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  149 

books  of  Daniel  and  Ezekiel,  as  in  the  case  of  the  latter  the 
Talmudical  record  maintains,  to  have  been  compiled  and 
edited  by  the  men  of  the  Great  Synod. 

(b)  The  center  and  symbol  of  this  patriotism,  faith  and 
hope  is  in  the  temple  on  Mount  Moriah,  its  cult,  rites, 
priesthood,  builders  and  supporters.  He  glorifies  David 
and  Solomon,  the  builders  of  the  temple,  by  numerous 
additions,  and  also  by  characteristic  omission  of  incidents 
which  mar  their  glory ;  as  the  story  of  Uriah  and  Bath 
Sheba,  the  rebellions  of  Absalom  and  Sheba,  his  conduct 
toward  Saul  and  his  descendants  in  the  case  of  David; 
and  the  idolatry  favored  by  Solomon,  the  rebellions  occur- 
ring in  his  days,  the  prophecies  of  Ahiah,  the  Shilonite,  in 
the  case  of  Solomon.  He  is  less  partial  and  more  severe 
on  the  dynasty,  except  those  kings  who  did  something  for 
the  temple,  the  promulgation  of  the  Thorah  among  the  peo- 
ple, or  the  glorification  of  priests  and  Levites.  He  narrates 
the  faults  and  shortcomings  also  of  the  best  kings,  like 
Asa,  Jehoshaphat,  Jotham  and  Hezekiah. 

(c)  About  the  priesthood  and  the  temple  service  the 
Chronist's  additions  are  most  profuse  in  his  accounts  of 
the  organizations  of  the  priests  and  Levites,  the  psalm- 
ody, the  musical  instruments,  the  musicians  and  singers, 
especially  of  the  ancient  families  of  Asaph,  Heiman  and 
Ethan.  He  pays  much  less  attention  to  the  sacrifices  and 
the  priests  than  he  does  to  music,  song  and  psalmody. 
The  Levites  occupy  the  foreground  in  all  his  additions  to 
the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings. 

This  entitles  us  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Chronist  had 
three  main  objects  in  view,  viz  :  to  produce  a  detailed  his- 
tory of  the  kings ;  to  glorify  the  temple  as  the  center  of 
Israel's  pride  and  patriotism ;  and  to  enhance  and  beautify 
the  temple  service  by  the  reintroduction  of  Davidian  psalm- 
ody and  orchestras,  Levitical  choruses,  stately  guards  and 
ministers  ;  all  of  which  disappeared  among  the  last  of  the 
prophets  from  their  speeches,  especially  in  Ezekiel's  vision 
of  the  future  temple,  and  had  no  prominent  place  in  the 
earlier  prophets'  writings.     The  fort    of  this  historian  is  in 


150  Hagiography. 

urging  this  reform,  this  addition  to  the  sacrificial  polity, 
and  to  prove  from  the  documents  at  his  command  that  this 
psalmody,  orchestras  and  choruses,  always  were  the  most 
important  part  of  the  temple  service,  and  also  prior  to  that 
in  the  time  of  David  and  Samuel.  The  decline  of  the  tem- 
ple service  at  diflferent  times,  especially  after  the  reign  of 
Jehoshaphat  and  later  on  after  Hezekiah,  was  chiefly  in  the 
reduction  and  neglect  of  the  poetical  and  musical  depart- 
ments, and  the  concentration  of  all  piety  and  worship  in 
the  sacrificial  rites,  as  is  evident  from  the  objections  urged 
by  prophets  and  psalmists  against  the  sacrifices. 

37.  The  diction  of  the  Chronist  is  a  clear  prose  without 
any  attempt  at  ornamentation,  the  popular  style  of  the 
narrative  in  his  days.  So  the  people  in  the  author  s  time 
spoke  and  wrote.  In  doctrine  and  historical  data  he  is  in 
perfect  harmony  with  all  the  other  books  of  the  Bible. 
His  peculiarities  consist  of  the  following  points  : 

(a)  The  Aramaic  forms  in  grammar,  phraseology,  terms, 
names  of  persons,  places  and  things,  use  of  adverbs  and 
prepositions,  the  addition  of  letters  in  the  middle  of  a  name, 
changing  the  Hebrew  Bai  (n)  into  the  Aramaic  Aleph  at 
the  end  of  a  word,  transposing  the  Yeho  (IH')  from  the 
beginning  of  a  name  to  its  end  or  changing  into  El,  trans- 
literating, abbreviating  or  replacing  letters  by  others  similar 
in  sound  then  and  there,  are  chief  characteristics  of  Chroni- 
cles, much  more  so  than  of  any  other  book  of  the  Bible. 

(h)  New  nouns  and  verbs  derived  from  Hebrew  or  also 
Aramaic  roots  abound  in  this  book. 

( c )  The  silent  or  Hebrew  vowel  letters  *"in  Hni,  Vav,  Yud, 
are  frequently  added  in  words,  in  which  in  older  books  they 
are  omitted.  Many  of  the  Keri  and  Kethih  marked  in  mar- 
ginal notes  of  Samuel  and  Kings  are  replaced  by  the 
correct  Keri  in  the  text ;  and  a  number  of  obscure  or  incor- 
rect passages  in  those  books  are  corrected  in  Chronicles. 

Point  c  shows  that  Chronicles  was  written  later  than  the 
books  of  Samuel  and  Kings,  and  even  then  none  dared 
make  any  correction,  any  kind  of  change  in  those  ancient 
books. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  151 

Points  a  and  h  prove  that  Chronicles  was  written  where 
and  when  the  people's  language  had  been  Aramized  to  a 
large  extent,  and  the  correct  pronunciation  of  Hebrew 
words,  even  popular  names  like  that  of  David  required  the 
assistance  of  vowel  letters. 

This  could  have  been  the  case  only  in  Babylon  among 
the  exiles,  or  very  shortly  after  their  return  to  Palestine. 
After  their  return  they  rapidly  improved  in  the  Hebrew 
language,  as  is  evident  not  only  from  the  books  and  psalms 
written  then,  but  also  from  the  notes  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
and  the  speeches  of  the  prophet  Haggai,  which  were  certainly 
addressed  to  the  general  public.  The  complaint  of  Nehe- 
miah (xiii.  24)  that  the  children  of  alien  mothers  did  not 
know  how  to  speak  Hebrew,  only  proves  that  all  others  could 
and  did  speak  the  Hebrew  well.  Chronicles  must  have  been 
written  before  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  came  to  Palestine,  or  if 
by  Ezra,  which  the  Talmudical  tradition  maintains  not,  he 
certainly  wrote  it  in  the  earlier  days  of  his  life  in  Babylon. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  body  of  the  book,  i.  e.,  from  1  Chroni- 
cles X.  to  the  end  of  2  Chronicles,  which  points  to  any  time 
later  than  Zerubabel's  return  to  Palestine  ;  but  there  are  in 
the  first  part  (i.  to  ix.)  traces  of  a  later  time,  which  must  be 
considered. 

38.  The  nine  chapters  in  the  beginning  of  Chronicles  are 
ascribed  to  Ezra  in  the  Talmudical  tradition.  In  the  main 
they  are  transcripts  from  genealogies  recorded  in  Penta- 
teuch, Joshua,  Samuel  and  Kings,  to  which  are  added 
genealogies  especially  of  the  tribes  of  Judah,  Levy,  Benja- 
min, the  transjordanic  tribes,  with  short  notices  on  the 
tribes  of  Ephraim,  Simeon  and  Dan,  all  of  which  was  com- 
piled from  works  no  longer  extant,  to  establish  thft  claims 
of  those  families  to  purity  of  blood  and  right  of  possession  in 
their  different  districts  and  towns,  founded  originally  by 
their  ancestors.  The  reason  for  this  imperfect  record — only 
a  small  number  of  families  and  founders  of  towns  are  men- 
tioned— is  obvious.  Ezra's  work  was  intended  to  establish 
the  legal  claims  of  such  families  that  either  had  never  left 
(not   all  members  thereof  did)  their  original  possessions 


152  Hagiogbaphy. 

in  Palestine,  or  had  returned  from  the  exile  prior  to  or 
cotemporary  with  Ezra  (1  Chronicles  iv.  41-43  and  v.  16- 
22).  Chapter  vi.  is  an  ancient  document,  which  may  have 
been  written  in  the  time  of  King  David  or  Solomon,  if  it 
begins  v.  27  as  maintained  in  the  Septuagint.  It  was  placed 
here  to  give  prominence  to  the  purely  Levitical  families, 
especially  of  Heiman  and  Asaf,  and  the  priestly  line  from 
Phineas,  their  titles  to  certain  towns  and  districts,  which 
had  been  deserted  by  some  of  them  already  in  the  time  of 
Jeroboam  (2  Chronicles  xi.  14),  and  many  more  of  them 
in  course  of  time  abandoned  their  vocation  and  neglected 
their  genealogies  (Ezekiel  xliv.  9-24;  Ezra  ii.  59-63). 
Chapter  ix.  is  a  record  of  families  that  lived  in  Jerusalem 
prior  to  the  exile,  and  Nehemiah  xi.  reports  the  inhabitants 
of  Jerusalem  after  their  return  from  the  exile.  Only  one 
passage  in  1  Chronicles  iii.  19-24  is  pointed  out  to  prove 
that  it  must  have  been  written  after  Ezra,  and  that  is  a 
mistake.  We  find  there  the  genealogy  of  Zerubabel,  the 
lineal  descendant  of  the  Davidian  kings,  by  Pedaiah,  son 
of  Shealthie],  son  of  King  Jehoiachin,  or  Jechouiah.  Then 
verses  19  and  20  are  given  the  eight  children  of  Zerubabel. 
Verse  21  are  given  the  names  of  two  grandsons  of  Zerubabel, 
and  four  side  families  of  the  Davidian  house,  and  again 
three  generations  of  one  of  these  families  (Shechaniah's). 
Without  any  good  reason  these  four  families  are  taken  as 
descendants  of  Zerubabel,  and  they  with  their  descendants, 
and  following  the  descendants  of  Zerubabel  would  make 
seven  generations  and  bring  the  author  of  this  passage  to 
200  years  after  Zerubabel,  about  300  B.  C,  while  in  fact  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah  flourished  in  the  third  generation  of  Zeru- 
babel (Nehemiah  iii.  4;  vi.  18,30).  There  is  no  cause  to 
gainsay  the  Talmudical  tradition  that  Ezra  wrote  the  Book 
of  Genealogies  to  himself  ^7  1J7.  Nor  can  there  be  any 
doubt  he  wrote  from  authentic  written  sources,  old  official 
records  lost  to  us.  This  is  evident  from  the  historical 
notices  reaching  as  far  back  as  to  the  sons  of  Ephraim  and 
Benjamin  in  the  land  of  Goshen  (1  Chronicles  vi.  21-28; 
viii.  13) ;  Jabez  and  the  city  of  scribes  in  the  early  days  of 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  153 

the  Judges  (ibid.  ii.  55;  iv.  9) ;  one  of  the  house  of  Kaleb, 
who  had  for  a  wife  Bithiah,  the  daughter  of  Pharaoh  (ibid, 
iv.  18) ;  the  exploits  of  the  sons  of  Simeon  before  and 
during  the  life-time  of  King  Hezekiah  (ibid.  iv.  39-42) ;  the 
exploits  of  the  Reubenites  in  the  time  of  King  Saul  (ibid. 
V.  6,  19) ;  the  inhabitants  of  Gilead  had  been  counted  and 
registered  in  the  time  of  King  Jotham  and  Joroboam  II. 
(ibid.  V.  17) ;  that  a  granddaughter  of  Ephraim,  Shearah, 
built  three  towns  (ibid.  vi.  24) ;  of  all  of  which  we  have  no 
notice  in  any  other  book.  The  author  tells  us  (ibid.  ix.  1) 
that  all  Israel  had  been  carefully  registered  in  the  book  of 
the  Kings  of  Israel  and  of  Judah,  before  they  were  exiled 
to  Babylonia,  which  tells  us  one  of  his  sources,  and  also  the 
reason  for  not  going  into  any  further  details. 

39.  We  have  in  fact  before  us  four  books  : 

(a)  The  book  of  Chronicles  proper  from  1  Chronicles  x. 
to  the  end  of  2  Chronicles,  written  in  Babylonia  or  very 
shortly  after  the  return  from  the  exile,  written  by  a  reform- 
atory prophet  or  Levite  in  that  period  about  500  B.  C. 

(h)  The  nine  chapters  of  genealogy,  written  by  Ezra 
before  his  return  to  Palestine  about  460  B.  C. 

(c)  The  documentary  history  of  Zerubabel  and  his  time 
with  the  arrival  of  Ezra  in  Palestine,  written  about  457  B.  C, 
now  Ezra  i.-vi. 

(d)  The  notes  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  written  by  them- 
selves between  458  and  423  B.  C,  compiled  in  one  book,  the 
main  book  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  about  360  B.  C. 

The  Men  of  the  Great  Synod  connected  these  four  books 
into  Chronicles  and  Ezra  in  chronological  order. 

The  difficulties  in  these  books  are  the  extravagant  num- 
bers, which  occur  frequently,  and  the  change  of  names  for 
the  same  persons,  for  which  it  is  easier  to  account,  but  there 
is  none  in  the  narrative  except  2  Chronicles  xxii.,  where  it 
is  stated  that  King  Ahaziah  was  forty-two  years  old  on 
mounting  the  throne  of  Judah  as  immediate  successor  of 
his  father,  Jehoram,  of  whom  it  is  stated  three  verses  before 
that  he  was  forty  years  old  when  he  died.  This  is  evidently 
a  mistake,  not  made  by  the  author,  but  by  some  transcriber 


154  Hagiography. 

who  mistook  the  haf  (20)  for  a  mem  (40)  without  seeing 
that  in  2  Kings  Ahaziah  is  said  to  have  been  twenty-two 
years  old,  and  almost  the  whole  account  in  2  Kings  viii.  26 
is  literally  copied  in  Chronicles  with  the  addition  of  "  the 
youngest  son  "  of  Joram. 


CHAPTER    VI. 

THE    AU'rtlENTICITY    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH. 

THE  traditions  of  the  Hebrew  people  and  documentary 
evidence  before  us  preclude  the  theory  of  that  school  of 
modern  criticism  which  places  the  Pentateuch  at  or  near 
the  close  of  the  prophetical  millenium,  as  the  product  of 
historical  development.  Prior  to  Abraham  Ibn  Ezra,  in 
the  twelfth  century,  none  expressed  any  doubt  that  Moses 
was  the  author  of  the  entire  book,  excepting  only  the  clos- 
ing passage  of  Deuteronomy,  which  some  rabbis  in  the  Tal- 
mud ascribe  to  Joshua ;  and  he  merely  suggests  that  a  few 
historical  notes  must  be  of  later  origin  than  the  body  of  the 
book.  They  may  have  been  added  by  transcribers  or  copy- 
ists as  marginal  notes  first,  which  were  then  amalgamated 
with  the  text.  After  him  some  other  passages  of  the  same 
kind  were  pointed  out — one  by  Moses  Nachmanides — but 
neither  of  them  changed  the  traditional  belief  in  the  authen 
ticity  of  the  Pentateuch,  so  that  this  very  day  the  minister, 
taking  out  the  Scroll  of  the  Law  from  the  ark  during  divine 
service,  tells  his  congregation  :  "  This  is  the  Thorah  which 
Moses  put  before  the  children  of  Israel."  The  exceptions 
are  but  few  and  recent.  The  entire  post-biblical  literature, 
both  the  apocryphal  and  rabbinical,  reaching  in  some  of  its 
parts  as  far  back  as  to  the  days  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  and 
down  to  the  sixth  Christian  century,  records  the  universal 
existence  of  this  tradition  in  Israel,  independent  of  the 
same  records  in  the  Greco-Judaic  and  the  early  Christian 
literature. 

2.  The  documentary  evidence  is  either  direct  or  indirect. 
The  direct  evidence  is  the  following  : 

(a)  The  statement  in  the   Pentateuch :  Genesis  v.  1,  the 
Sepher  Tholedoth  Adam  is  noticed;   and  Sepher  signifies  a 


156  The  Authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

book,  a  something  written  by  somebody.  Tholedoth  is  usu- 
ally rendered  "  genealogies,''  but  it  signifies  also  the  birth 
of  events,  the  narration  of  facts,*  so  that  the  narrative 
of  every  prominent  progenitor  begins  with  the  same  words, 
Eleh  Tholedoth,  also  without  speaking  of  descendency, 
as  in  XXV.  19  and  xxxvii.  2.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  author  of  Genesis  intended  to  inform  us  that  he 
had  before  him  written  records  of  genealogies  and  events, 
which  he  adopted,  or  adapted.  Exodus  xvii.  14,  we  are  in- 
formed that  Moses  began  to  write  the  Book  of  the  Wars  of 
Jehovah  (see  above  Chapter  II.,  p.  28).  Ibid.  xxiv.  12  and 
xxxiv.  1  we  are  told  that  God  wrote  for  Moses  the  inscriptions 
on  the  two  tablets  of  stone,  also  Thorah  and  commandment. 
Ibid.  xxiv.  4  and  xxxiv.,  we  are  informed  that  Moses  wrote 
the  Book  of  the  Covenant  and  a  special  copy  of  the  Deca- 
logue. From  Numbers  xi.  26  we  learn  that  the  names  of 
seventy-two  elders  were  written  down,  who  were  most  likely 
the  heads  of  tribes  and  the  heads  of  family  groups  men- 
tioned by  name  elsewhere  in  Numbers.  Then  writing  is 
mentioned  again,  xvi.  17-18.  Ibid,  xxxiii.  2  we  are  told  ex- 
pressly that  Moses  wrote  the  book,  or  scroll,  of  the  "  So- 
journs," Eleh  Massei,  which,  it  appears  from  the  context, 
contained  also  the  history  of  the  exodus  and  the  events 
which  occurred  in  the  wilderness.  The  practice  of  writing 
as  a  religious  duty  is  commanded  not  only  to  the  priest 
(Numbers  v.  23),  to  the  presumptive  king  (Deuteronomy 
xvii.  18),  to  the  leaders  of  the  people  crossing  the  Jordan 
ibid,  xxvii.  3-8)  and  to  the  Judges  (ibid.  xxiv.  1),  but  also 
to  every  occupant  of  any  house  (ibid.  vi.  9  and  xi.  20)- 
Then  it  is  noticed  again  that  God  wrote  the  inscriptions 
on  the  two  tables  of  stone  (ibid.  x.  2-4) ;  that  Moses  has 
commanded  "  to  read"  this  Thorah  publicly  at  stated  times 
(ibid  xxxi.  11) ;  that  he  wrote  Deuteronomy  and  delivered  it 
to  the  priests  and  all  the  elders  of  the  people  (ibid.  xxxi.  9- 
24) ;  and  that  he  wrote  another  Book  of  the  Thorah,  which 
he  delivered  to  the  Levites,  the  bearers  of  the  ark  of  the 

*  Genesis  vi.  9 ;  ix.  1 ;  xi.  10 ;  xxv.  12-19 ;  xxxvi.  1 ;  xxxvii.  2. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  157 

covenant,  to  be  placed  as  a  testimony  at  the  side  of  the  ark 
(ibid,  verse  25).  Then  again  we  are  informed  (ibid,  verses 
19  and  21)  that  Moses  began  also  to  write  the  Book  of 
Jashar  (see  above  Chapter  II.,  p.  28),  and  commanded  the 
people  to  copy  and  commit  to  memory  his  last  song. 
These  direct  statements  of  facts  can  not  legitimately  be 
explained  away  as  metaphoric  or  symbolic  language.  They 
can  not  be  disposed  of  as  interpolations,  as  they  are  not  in 
contradiction  with  the  known  origin  of  alphabetical  writing 
and  literature  among  the  Shemites  of  Asia  or  Africa.  In 
order  to  bring  the  Pentateuch  down  to  post-prophetical 
times,  or  any  time  after  Moses,  all  these  and  many  more 
passages  must  be  declared  fraudulent  interpolations,  will- 
ful deceptions,  which  is  certainly  an  illegitimate  verdict  in 
this  case,  when  the  entire  book  treats  on  the  loftiest  ideals 
of  humanity  and  spirituality,  without  any  selfish  motive  or 
any  attempt  in  favor  of  any  person,  community  or  nation, 
and  without  any  contradiction  to  reason,  or  the  experience 
of  mankind.  This  excludes  every  possible  motive  of  fraud 
and  willful  deception.  All  that  can  be  derived  from  these 
various  statements  against  the  authenticity  of  the  Penta- 
teuch is  that  the  repetition  of  these  statements  in  those  par- 
ticular places  of  the  book  may  prove  that  not  all  in  that 
book  was  written  by  Moses ;  but  also  this  seems  to  conflict 
with  Deuteronomy  xxxi.  25,  and  it  would  only  remain  to  be 
proved  that  the  entire  Pentateuch  as  now  before  us  is  of 
Mosaic  origin. 

(6)  The  word  "  Thorah,"  with  prefixes  or  suffixes,  or  with 
Jehovah,  Elohim  or  Moses  connected  with  it,  occurs  in  the 
Bible  no  less  than  two  hundred  and  forty-six  times,  as  every 
reader  can  see  in  any  Hebrew  concordance.  The  frequent 
recurrence  of  this  word  in  the  historical  books  (except  in 
Judges  and  Samuel),  in  Prophets  from  Amos  to  Malachi, 
in  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Job,  throughout  the  entire  Biblical 
literature,  although  in  some  instances  it  may  not  refer  to 
the  written  Thorah,  certainly  proves  that  something  real  and 
authoritative  must  have  always  existed,  generally  known 
as  "  Thorah,"  so  that  prophets  and  psa-lmists  could  in  some 


158  The  Authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

instances  call  also  their  own  teachings  Thorah.  Recurring 
some  fifty  times  with  the  definite  article  (pj)  in  hat-Thora^ 
bat-Thorah  and  kat- Thorah,  it  must  evidently  refer  to  a 
reality,  and  not  to  the  mere  preaching  of  this  or  that 
prophet.  Appearing  with  the  word  Sepher, "  book,"  or  ka- 
kathuh,"a.s  it  is  written,"  before  it,  we  know  that  it  is  a  book 
written.  Again,  the  term  Thorah  appearing  in  connection 
with  Mitzvah,  "  commandment,"  or  Chukkim,  "  statutes,"  or 
Mishpatim,  "  ordinances,"  we  know  it  is  a  book  in  which 
also  commandments,  statutes  and  ordinances  occur.  If  we 
then  find  this  written  book  qualified  as  the  Thorah  of  Jeho- 
vah, the  Thorah  of  Elohim  and  the  Thorah  of  Moses,  we 
know  that  this  term  refers  to  a  well-known  book  which  con- 
tains also  commandments,  statutes  and  ordinances,  which 
according  to  the  records  was  always  known  and  believed  to 
be  of  God  and  written  by  Moses.  That  the  word  Thorah 
appears  in  Holy  Writ  in  all  the  connections  noticed  is  evi- 
dent from  any  Hebrew  concordance.  If  in  any  special  case 
the  word  Thorah  refers  to  the  teaching  of  any  prophet  or 
psalmist,  it  must  be  proved,  in  every  instance,  after  we  know 
that  generally  it  means  the  Thorah  of  Moses. 

That  the  authors  of  Judges  and  Samuel  had  no  occasion 
to  mention  the  Thorah  does  not  invalidate  the  argument. 
For  in  the  oldest  piece  in  the  book  of  Judges,  the  revelation 
on  Mount  Sinai  is  mentioned,  viz. :  In  the  song  of  Deborah 
(Judges  V.  4,  5),*  besides  which  there  are  in  both  these 
books  frequent  references  to  the  Thorah,  as  shall  be  no- 
ticed below.  In  Samuel,  to  which  belongs  also  the  first, 
second  and  part  of  the  third  chapter  of  Kings,  the  Thorah 
is  very  explicitly  mentioned  (1  Kings  ii.  4),  to  which  is 
referred  also  in  Psalms  i.  2 ;  xviii.  31 ;  and  xix.  8.  Again 
the  book  of  Joshua  was  written  prior  to  Judges  and  Samuel 
(see  Chap.  III.  pp.  39-41),  in  which  the  Thorah  is  mentioned 
too  often  and  too  explicitly  to  doubt  its  existence  then  ;  the 

*This  is  taken  from  Deuter.  xxxiii.  2.  The  song  of  Deborah  has 
become  the  text  to  the  ancient  Davidian  Shir,  Psalm  Ixviii.,  where 
Judah  only  is  added  to  the  tribes  praised  by  Deborah  for  patriotism 
and  heroism. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  159 

Davidian  Psalms  and  the  Solomonic  Proverbs  shortly  after 
the  book  of  Samuel  testify  no  less  than  Joshua  to  the  exist- 
ence of  the  Thorah  then ;  hence  the  absence  of  the  word 
Thorah  in  those  two  books  could  be  but  accidental,  unless 
it  be  maintained  that  in  the  interim  the  Thorah  was  sus- 
pended, neglected,  violated  and  forgotten,  which  does  not 
gainsay  the  authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  can  not  be 
sustained  in  the  face  of  the  facts  that  there  are  in  the  books 
of  Judges  and  Samuel  numerous  quotations  from  and  refer- 
ences to  the  Thorah,  both  its  historical  and  juridical  por- 
tions and  its  poetical  tropes. 

The  position,  that  those  historical  books,  Psalms  and 
Proverbs,  were  written  or  rewritten  with  fraudulent  inten- 
tions during  the  Babylonian  exile  or  thereafter,  has  been 
disposed  of  in  the  former  chapters  of  this  book.  What  was 
written  during  or  close  to  that  exile  besides  Ezekiel,  the 
first  part  of  Daniel,  and  parts  of  the  twelve  Minor  Prophets, 
is  the  main  portion  of  the  book  of  Chronicles ;  and  this 
proves  beyond  any  doubt  that  in  its  time  the  antiquity  of 
the  historical  books  was  so  well  established  that  no  correc- 
tions of  mistakes  even  would  be  permitted  in  those  old 
monuments. 

(c)  The  origin  of  the  fundamental  iristitutions  and  appa- 
ratuses, inseparable  from  the  political  and  ecclesiastical 
life  and  the  historical  process  of  the  ancient  Israel,  is 
described  in  the  Thorah  only ;  and  in  all  other  books  of 
Holy  Writ  not  even  a  remote  intimation  of  the  origin  of 
those  institutions  and  apparatuses  can  be  discovered.  This 
demonstrates  at  once  the  existence  of  the  Thorah  prior  to 
all  other  books  of  the  Bible.     Such  institutions  are  : 

A.  The  division  and  organization  of  the  nation  in  thirteen 
tribes,  the  sons  of  Joseph  as  two  tribes,  each  with  its  own 
Nassi  or  prince  of  the  tribe,  each  tribe  divided  into  family 
groups,  and  each  group  into  natural  families,  two  and  a 
half  of  those  tribes  located  east  of  the  Jordan  River,  and  ten 
and  a  half  tribes  west  of  the  Jordan  located  in  their  exact 
districts  to  the  very  end  of  their  national  existence,  where 
they  were,  when  Deborah  and  Barak  in  the  century  after 


160  The  Authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

Joshua  sang  their  celebrated  hymn,  and  then  this  tribal 
division  and  location  was  already  a  matter  of.  history.  The 
origin  is  noticed  in  the  Thorah  only.  (Genesis  xlviii.  5; 
xlix.  28;  Exodus  xxviii.  6-30;  Numbers  i.  and  vii. ;  xxvi. 
11-65 ;  xxxii.  and  xxxiv. ;  Joshua  xiii.-xxii. ;  compare 
1  Chronicles  ii.  to  ix.) 

B.  The  fundamental  institution  of  the  Seventy  Elders 
with  all  the  ideas  of  the  federal  and  representative  form  of 
government,  which,  according  to  the  unanimous  testimony 
of  the  Bible,  Josephus  and  the  Talmud  always  existed  in 
Israel  unless  momentarily  suspended  by  some  despotic 
king ;  and  yet  there  is  no  mention  or  intimation  of  its  origin 
except  in  Numbers  xi.  and  Deuter.  xvii.  8;  yet  they  are 
there  in  Joshua  xiv. ;  Judges  xxi. ;  1  Samuel  viii.  4 ;  2 
Samuel  iii.  17  and  v.  3 ;  1  Kings  viii.  3 ;  at  every  import- 
ant national  event  down  to  the  prophet  Jeremiah's  time. 

C.  The  continuous  existence  of  prophets  from  Moses  to 
Nehemiah  for  one  thousand  years  (see  Chapter  IV.,  p.  61) 
with  precisely  the  same  pretensions  of  being  the  messen- 
gers and  mouthpieces  of  the  same  God,  with  the  same 
religious  principles  and  ethical  doctrine,  the  very  same 
system  of  righteousness  which  the  Thorah  prescribes  and 
defines,  without  yielding  or  even  inclining  at  any  time 
to  any  foreign  doctrine  and  without  advancing  or  even 
intimating  anywhere  that  any  one  of  them  taught  any  doc- 
trine, principle  or  law  not  known  before  to  the  Hebrews ; 
so  that  the  Talmud  c  )uld  maintain  that  forty-eight  prophets 
and  seven  prophetesses  prophesied,  and  they  added  naught 
and  took  naught  away  from  what  is  written  in  the  Thorah. 
(Meyuillah  14a.)  If  this  God-idea,  these  principles  and 
doctrines,  this  particular  system  of  righteousness  had  not 
been  established  authoritatively  before  the  very  first  as 
before  the  last  of  these  prophets,  their  unanimity  would 
have  been  a  matter  of  impossibility,  as  the  history  of 
Grecian  philosophy  proves. 

D.  The  sameness  of  the  polity  with  the  same  Levitical 
priests,  upon  the  Bamoth  or  heights,  as  prescribed  by  Moses 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  161 

(Exodus  XX.  19,  23)  and  in  the  national  sanctuary*  (Num- 
bers xxviii.)  in  Shiloh,  Nob,  Gibeon  and  Jerusalem!  from 
the  days  of  Joshua  nearly  fifteen  hundred  years,  without 
any  intimation  anywhere  or  of  any  one  having  introduced  or 
changed  the  same — points  undeniably  to  an  authoritative 
Thorah  prior  to  Joshua. 

E.  The  Ark  of  the  Covenant  (p")N),  containing  the  two 
tables  of  stone,  the  "  Testimony  "  (mi)?),  covered  with  the 
golden  lid  and  the  two  cherubim,  (nSlfi^)  was  there  and 
is  noticed  in  the  Biblical  books  at  all  times  from  Joshua  to 
Jeremiah ;  and  yet  outside  of  the  Thorah  the  origin  of  this 
historical  monument,  this  very  heart  and  soul  of  the  Mosaic 
dispensation,  doctrine  and  law,  is  noticed  nowhere  by  state- 
ment or  intimation.  No  less  than  one  hundred  and  forty- 
five  times  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  is  expressly  noticed  after 
the    Pentateuch  in  the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel, 

*Moses  evidently  permits  the  sacrificing  upon  Bamoth  or  altars 
of  earth  or  rough  stone  upon  heights,  not  in  the  wilderness  but  in 
the  land  of  Canaan  (Exodus  xx.  20-23).  This  passage  is  further 
expounded  in  Deuteronomy  xii.  where  ^j^nZD'  nnX3  signifies  in 
any  one  of  thy  tribes  or  wherever  .the  prophet  will  point  out  the 
place,  that  God  will  cause  his  name  to  be  mentioned.  Yet  in  after 
times  there  was  a  continual  difference  between  the  prophets  who 
opposed  the  Bamoth  and  the  kings  and  people  who  sustained  them. 
The  law  was  undoubtedly  there.  This  is  evident  from  2  Kings  v. 
17,  where  it  is  reported  that  the  Syrian  captain,  Naaman,  being  con- 
verted to  worship  Jehovah,  asked  for  earth  to  take  along  to  his 
country,  to  build  of  it  an  altar  to  Jehovah.  It  seems  that  then  the 
letter  of  the  law  in  Exodus,  verse  21,  was  understood  literally  that 
the  earth  for  the  altar  must  be  from  Palestinean  soil.  Being  per- 
mitted by  the  law  and  having  become  universal  custom,  the  people 
and  also  the  most  pious  kings  clung  to  it  (See  2  Chronicles  xxxiii. 
17).  Having  become  in  many  instances  pagan  altars  the  prophets 
opposed  the  Bamoth,  but  never  succeeded  in  overcoming  the  prac- 
tice, because  the  law  permitted  it.  Had  the  Thorah  been  written 
or  revised  at  a  late  date  by  any  of  the  prophets  this  passage  in 
Exodus  must  necessarily  have  been  omitted  together  with  Deuter- 
onomy xii. 

t  The  sanctuary  of  Shiloh,  with  the  uninterrupted  continuation 
of  the  same  sacrificial  polity,  can  not  be  doubted.     It  is  mentioned 


162  The  Authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

Kings,  Chronicles  and  Jeremiah,  in  connection  with  histori- 
cal events  and  always  as  a  reality,  being  actually  there  when 
such  event  or  events  occurred,  as  may  be  seen  in  any  He- 
brew concordance.  It  is  described  as  the  "Ark  of  the  Cove- 
nant," the  "Ark  of  Jehovah,"  the  "Ark  of  Elohim,"  the  "Ark 
of  the  Covenant  of  Jehovah,"  the  "Ark  of  the  Covenant  of 
Elohim,"  the  "Ark  of  the  God  of  Israel,"  and  the  "Ark  of 
the  Covenant  of  Jehovah  Zabaoth,"  with  the  same  Baddim, 
or  two  bars  in  the  rings  on  its  two  sides,  and  containing  the 
same  two  tables  of  stone  in  the  time  of  King  Solomon  when 
it  was  placed  into  the  sanctum  sanctorum  of  the  temple, 
where  it  certainly  remained  unchanged,  the  same  until 
Jeremiah,  prior  to  the  destruction  of  the  temple,  hid  it, 
together  with  the  golden  altar  and  the  Mosaic  tabernacle  in 
a  cave  on  Mount  Nebo  (2  Maccabees  ii.  4-6) ;  or,  as  the  Tal- 
mud and  Maimonides  have  it,  it  was  hid  under  the  temple 
in  a  secret  chamber  by  King  Joshiah  (See  Art.  "Aron  "  in 
Pachad  Yitzchak).* 

3.  The  indirect  evidence  to  the  authenticity  of  the  Penta- 
teuch consists  of  the  following  points  : 

(a)  The  laws  and  institutions  on  which  critics  agree  that 

first  as  the  presumptive  capital  of  Canaan  (Genesis  xlix.  10),  then 
as  the  capital  of  Canaan  and  the  place  of  the  national  sanctuary 
(Joshua  xviii.  1;  xix.  51),  and  is  that  yet  in  the  time  of  Phineas 
(Judges  xxi.  19).  It  is  mentioned  again  as  such  in  1  Samuel ;  then 
in  Psalms  Ixxviii.  60,  and  in  Jeremiah  vii.  12-14,  where  its  de- 
struction is  noticed.  It  was  situated  in  Ephraim  (Joshua  xvi.  6). 
In  the  Talmud  (Sebachim)  the  tradition  is  recorded  that  the  sanc- 
tuary at  Shiloh  consisted  of  a  stone  structure,  on  the  top  of  which 
the  tabernacle  of  Moses  was  pitched.  The  tabernacle  itself  was 
not  destroyed ;  it  was  tranferred  from  Shiloh  to  Nob  ( ?)  and  then 
to  Gibeon  (1  Chronicles  xvi.  37—12)  and  finally  by  Solomon  to  Jeru- 
salem (2  Chronicles  v.  5  ;  2  Kings  viii.  4).  Those  critics  who  must 
prove  the  non-existence  of  any  Thorah  at  the  start  of  Israel 
in  Canaan,  make  it  easy  for  themselves  by  simply  denying  all 
this  documentary  testimony  concerning  Shiloh  and  the  Mosaic 
tabernacle. 

*  Most  objectionable  in  this  connection  is  the  assumption  of  some 
radical   critics,  that  the  "Ark"  was  the  god  or  idol  worshiped  by 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  163 

they  were  adopted  into  the  Pentateuch  from  the  Egyptians, 
as  is  also  the  case  with  the  Egyptian  words  and  names  in 
the  Book,  and  the  fact  that  its  author  and  the  people  to 
whom  he  spoke  knew  more  of  Egypt  than  of  Canaan.  These 
points  being  sufficiently  discussed,  require  no  further  sup- 
port ;  it  is  for  the  negative  side  to  show  how  this  could  have 
been  the  case  if  the  book  had  been  written  after  the  time  of 
Moses.  In  connection  therewith  it  must  be  borne  in  mind 
that  there  is  no  trace  in  the  Pentateuch  of  Zoroasterism, 
which  we  know  also  from  Isaiah  (xlv.  6,  7)  that  it  existed 
in  his  time ;  no  knowledge  of  the  city  of  Babylon,  no  more 
than  that  one  of  the  four  provinces  over  which  Nimrod 
reigned  in  the  land  of  Shinear  was  called  Babel  (Genesis  x. 
10  and  xi.  2)*  no  knowledge  of  a  land  called  Assyria  or  a 
capital  called  Nineveh,  Ashshur  is  yet  the  name  of  a  man 
and  Resen  is  the  "  Great  City  "  ( Genesis  x.  11, 12),  not  even 
in  the  time  of  Abraham  (ibid,  xiv.),  and  the  Ashshur  in  the 
poem  of  Balaam  (Numbers  xxiv.)  seems  yet  to  be  taken  as 
the  name  of  a  man  and  not  of  a  country.  The  Pentateuch 
betrays  no  knowledge  of  any  country  except   Egypt   and 


the  ancient  Hebrews,  to  which  others  add  that  the  stones  kept 
therein  were  those  gods  or  idols,  in  support  of  which  the  Scriptural 
texts  offer  no  more  argument  than  reason  and  experience  offer  in 
support  of  the  assumption  that  human  beings  at  any  time  wor- 
shiped stock,  stone,  or  any  other  object  of  nature,  box,  idol,  image, 
or  any  other  work  of  art,  otherwise  than  as  presentations  of  ideas 
or  conceptions  of  divinity  preceding  the  objects  of  nature  or  the 
works  of  art  adopted  to  represent  those  previous  ideas  or  concep- 
tions. Only  when  the  original  ideas  were  forgotten,  thoughtless 
multitudes  continued  to  worship  those  objects.  It  is  an  outrage  on 
human  nature  to  reverse  the  order  and  entirely  contrary  to  experi- 
ence. The  ark  and  the  tablets,  if  they  were  ever  worshiped  in  Is- 
rael, must  necessarily  first  have  represented  ideas  of  di^^nity, 
which  could  but  be  the  inscriptions  on  those  stones  and  the  charac- 
ter of  that  ark  as  testimony  of  the  covenant.  Those  radical  critics, 
however,  admit  the  existence  of  the  ark  and  tablets  at  all  times 
after  Moses;  hence  their  assumption  does  not  invalidate  our  argu- 
ment in  this  connection. 

*Al80  in  Joshua  vii.  21  we  find  the  Adereth  Shinear. 


164  The  Authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

Arabia.  It  has  not  even  the  city  of  Tyre,  and  besides 
Damascus  and  Haran  in  Mesopotamia,  none  in  Syria.  In 
the  East  it  knows  only  of  Ur  of  the  Chaldeans. 

(b)  There  are  in  the  Pentateuch  a  number  of  laws  and 
narrations  which  could  have  been  written  only  during  the 
sojourn  of  Israel  in  the  wilderness  prior  to  taking  possession 
of  the  land  of  Canaan ;  as  the  laws  concerning  the  Year  of 
Jubilee  and  the  Year  of  Release  (Leviticus  xxv.).  In  no 
land  and  among  no  people  in  possession  of  the  soil  such 
laws  of  possession  could  be  ordained  with  any  prospect  of 
success.  They  could  be  prospective  only  and  ordained  be- 
fore the  Israelites  possessed  the  land  of  Canaan,  as  condi- 
tions sine  qua  non  under  which  God  gives  them  possession 
of  the  land  (Leviticus  xxvi.  33-35,  43).  It  is  evident  that 
the  law  of  possession,  as  ordained  in  Moses,  existed  among 
the  Israelites  at  all  times  (Ruth  i.  9  to  ii.  10;  Jeremiah 
xxxii.  1-12  ;  xxxiv.  1-27 ;  Ezekiel  xlvi.  17),  so  that  not  even 
wicked  Ahab  dared  to  violate  it  (2  Kings  xxi.) ;  and  when 
the  exiles  returned  from  Babylon,  the  family  groups  were 
carefully  noticed  to  return  each  to  its  own.  It  is  not  cer- 
tain that  the  Year  of  Jubilee  was  enforced  at  any  time ;  so 
much  the  more  it  must  have  been  a  prospective  legislation, 
which,  like  many  others  of  the  same  kind,  were  never  reduced 
to  practice.  If  it  had  been  enacted  at  any  time  in  Canaan 
it  must  have  left  a  trace  of  its  origin.* 

(c)  Among  other  chapters  of    Leviticus  and  Numbers 

*Jeremiah  xxxiv.  gives  us  to  understand  tliat  he  refers  to  the 
Thorah.  He  uses  the  terms  *t^2n  and  "im  for  free  and  freedom, 
exactly  like  Moses  in  Exodus  and  Leviticus,  which  none  after  him 
had  used  except  Jeremiah,  and  connects  them  with  the  same  verbs 
as  Moses  did  "CJ^sn  rhzb  "illl  NlpS  In  verse  14  he  begins  with  the 
words  of  Moses  in  Deuteronomy  (xv.  1),  and  continues  with  the 
Mosaic  words  in  (Exodus  xxi.  27),  and  like  Moses  he  places  the 
verb  "l3D'  yhnmocher  in  the  passive  voice,  showing  that  he  knows 
and  refers  to  all  the  laws  of  Moses  on  this  subject,  and  refers  only 
to  persons  that  had  been  sold  as  a  punishment  for  crimes  com- 
mitted, as  Exodus  xxii.  2,  to  whom  alone  Exodus  xxi.  2  refers.  No 
other  bondsman  went  out  free  with  the  seventh  year  of  his  servi- 
tude unless  such  was  his  special  compact 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  165 

which  refer  especially  to  the  sojourn  in  the  wilder- 
ness, Leviticus  xvii.  contains  the  plainest  evidence  of 
having  been  written  there,  and  even  in  the  beginning  of 
that  period,  soon  after  the  tabernacle  had  been  erected, 
which  applies  also  to  chapters  xviii.-xx.,  wherein  the  pecu- 
liarity of  addressing  the  commandments  to  C*''i^  C^i^ 
or  CJ<  recurs  frequently.*  These  are  special  laws  ex- 
pressed in  concrete  cases,  without  abstraction  of  gen- 
eral laws,  as  in  Exodus  xxi. .  and  xxii.,  which  is  cer- 
tainly the  form  of  primitive  legislation.  Besides,  this  chap- 
ter closes  thus  :  ''And  every  person  that  eateth  that  which 
hath  died  of  itself,  or  that  which  was  torn  by  beasts,  be  this 
one  born  in  your  own  country,  or  a  stranger,  shall  both 
wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in  water,  and  be 
unclean  until  the  evening,  when  he  shall  be  clean.  But 
if  he  wash  (them)  not,  nor  bathe  his  flesh,  then  shall 
he  bear  his  iniquity."  This  was  certainly  Avritten  prior  to 
Leviticus  xi.,  where  the  eating,  touching  or  carrying  any 
unclean  carcass  is  prohibited  with  much  more  emphasis 
than  prescribing  for  the  transgressor  no  other  punishment 
or  means  of  atonement  than  washing  his  body  and  gar- 
ments, so  that  the  sin  is  not  in  eating  the  forbidden  food,  but 
in  not  washing  if  one  ate  it.  This  passage  can  only  be  a  con- 
tinuation of  Exodus  xxii.  30,  which  it  supplements.  The 
whole  of  this  chapter  refers  to  matters  in  the  wilderness  and 
at  that  special  time.  There  is  no  reason  imaginable  why  it 
should  have  been  written  at  any  other  time.  This  is  also 
evident  from  Deuteronomy  xii.  15,  16,  20-23.  It  prohibits 
the  killing  of  sheep,  goats  or  cattle  otherwise  than  at  the 
altar,  where  the  blood  is  to  be  sprinkled  and  part  of  the  fat 
to  be  burned,  for  which  the  reason  is  given  in  verse  7,  "that 
they  make  no  sacrifices  to  the  <S'6  mm,"  the  demons  of  the 
wilderness,  besides  which  there  was  also  an  economical 
reason  not  stated  in  the  text,  all  referring  to  the  sojourn  in 
the  wilderness.  Then  in  verse  13  the  exception  to  this  rule 
is  stated  in  regard  to  game,  which  may  be  freely  used  for 


*Also  in  Numbers  v.  6  to  vi.  31  and  ix.  9-18. 


166  The  Authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

food,  but  the  blood  must  be  covered  with  dust  or  ashes. 
This  again,  was  only  for  the  wilderness,  a  sanitary  measure, 
and  is  not  repeated  in  Deuteronomy  xii.  16,  24,  because  it 
referred  to  the  wilderness  only.  No  motive  is  imaginable 
that  could  have  induced  any  author,  after  or  before  Moses, 
to  write  this  chapter  xvii.  of  Leviticus.  The  same  is  the 
case  with  the  story  of  the  golden  calf,  made  in  the  wil- 
derness, in  which  Aaron  is  placed  in  so  unfavorable  a  light 
(Deut.  ix.  20),  to  which  Leviticus  xvii.  evidently  refers.  It 
was  certainly  not  written  when  the  descendants  of  Aaron 
were  the  highest  aristocracy  of  the  nation,  as  was  always 
the  case,  at  least  from  and  after  the  time  of  King  Solomon. 
The  same  seems  to  be  the  case  with  all  Pentateuchal  pas- 
sages referring  to  the  conquest  of  Canaan  and  the  subjuga- 
tion or  even  extermination  of  the  aborigines,  when  they  had 
ceased  to  exist,  and  none  disputed  the  right  and  claim  of 
the  Israelites  to  their  land;*  on  the  contrary,  those  pas- 
sages sound  so  harshly  and  so  contrary  to  the  Mosaic  prin- 
ciple of  humanism  that  no  author  of  a  later  date  would 
have  written  them,  and  if  one  had  done  so,  no  compiler 
would  have  inserted  them  in  the  Thorah. 

There  are  also  a  number,  especially  of  penal  laws,  in  the 
Pentateuch  which,  if  tested  by  the  general  principles  and 
standard  of  Pentateuchal  ethics,  could  have  been  intended 
for  Israel's  sojourn  in  the  wilderness  only.  To  this  class 
might  be  taken  the  thirty-six  cases  in  the  Thorah,  the  com- 
mission (in  two  cases  omission)  of  which  to  be  punished 
with  Karath, "  cut  off"  (Mishna  Kerithuth  I.),  the  transgressor 

*The  passage  in  Ezra  ix.  1  does  not  Bay  that  those  nationalities 
existed  in  his  time ;  it  only  tells  that  in  taking  foreign  women  for 
wives,  they  did  DiTHnynS  "  like  their  abominations  "  which  their 
ancestors  did  in  marrying  the  daughters  of  those  nations.  The 
DH?  in  verse  2,  refers  to  mXTN  'J3y  in  verse  one.  Their  prac- 
tice now,  it  says,  was  as  abominable  as  it  was  in  former  days, 
when  Hebrews  took  in  marriage  the  daughters  of  other  nations, 
referring  to  historical  data,  as  is  evident  according  to  the  Talmud 
in  regard  to  Ammonites  and  Moabites  and  according  to  the  Law  as 
regards  the  Egyptians,  mentioned  in  Ezra. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  167 

to  be  cut  off,  and  it  is  said  nowhere  from  what  he  is  to  be  cut 
off.    The  rabbinical  expounders,  therefore,  were  in  doubt  as 
to  what  to  make  of  this  kind  of  punishment,  and  some  made 
of  it  a  divine  punishment  executed  by  the  Almighty  in  time 
or  eternity.*    This  esoteric  conception  of  the  term  Karath  is 
not  its  primary  meaning.    It  could  but  be  intended  to  convey 
the  idea  to  cut  off  from  the  tribe  or  from  the  main  body. 
This  was  a  severe  punishment  in  the  wilderness  only,  and 
was  inflicted    on    transgressors  among   many  other  tribes 
similarly  located.     The  same  seems  to  be  the  case  with  the 
punishment  of  death  for  the  Sabbath-breaker  (Exodus  xxxi. 
13-17 ;  Numbers  xv.  32-36)  and  all  penalties  of  death  in 
Leviticus  xx.,  all  of  which  are  justifiable  from  the  ethical 
standpoint  of  Moses,  as  temporary  measures  in  the  wilder- 
ness only,  where  such  heroic  and  rigorous  laws  were  neces- 
sary, to  break  down  the  pagan  practices,  to  maintain  moral 
purity  among  the  hundred  thousands  of  men  and  women 
encamped  in  close  approximation  in  the  heart  of  a  wide 
waste,  and  to  introduce  effectually  the  laws,  then  new,  like 
the  Sabbath,  the  sexual  relations  and  the  anti-pagan  prac- 
tices.    As  measures  in  the  wilderness,  they  are  harsh  and 
rigorous,   but  justifiable  by  prevailing  circumstances;   as 
laws  enacted  at  any  time  in  the  land  of  Israel,  they  are 
unjustifiable,  almost  unthinkable  in   connection   with  the 
Mosaic  standard  of  ethics.    These  must  be  legislations  from 
and  for  the  wilderness,  and  are,  therefore,  not  repeated  in 
Deuteronomy,  nor  by  prophets,  psalmists  or  chronographers. 
(d)  The   body    of    doctrine,   the   institutions    connected 
therewith  and  the  conception  of  righteousness  as  advanced 
in  the  Pentateuch  re-echo  from  all  parts  of  the  Bible  from 
first  chapter  of  Josuha  to  the  last  of  Chronicles.     It  is  not 
only  the  same  Jehovah-Elohim,  but  also  the  same  Creator, 
Preserver  and  Governor  of  the  world,  the  same  sole   Sover- 
eign of  heaven  and  earth,  and  in  his  relations  to  man  the  same 
Holy  God  of  mercy,  benevolence,  long  suffering  and  of  abso- 

*See  Siphri  to  Numbers  xv.  30,  31,  and  Talmud  Sanhedrin  99  and 
Targum  Yerushalmi. 


168  The  Authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

lute  grace  and  truth,  who  j^reserves  and  extends  the  good  and 
the  true  to  the  thousandth  generation  and  permits  evil  to 
exist  only  to  the  fourth,  and  forgives  iniquity,  sin  and  trans- 
gression. So  God  is  revealed  from  the  summit  of  Sinai,  so 
Moses  defines  and  proclaims  Jehovah  (Exodus  xx.  5 ;  xxxiv. 
6-7 ;  Numbers  xiv.  17-20 ;  Deuter.  x.  17  ;  iv.  35,  39 ;  vii.  9 ; 
xxxii.  3, 4).  So  did  David  praise  him  in  Psalms  ciii.  and  many 
other  psalms ;  so  God's  name  and  glory  resounds  and  re- 
echoes in  the  speeches  of  all  prophets,  the  songs  and  hymns 
of  all  psalmists  and  the  narrators  of  every  episode  of 
Israel's  history.  And  yet  none  of  those  inspired  men  main- 
tains that  God  revealed  himself  to  him  in  this  full  majesty 
of  his  glory ;  none  added  any  new  idea  to  this  sublime 
cognition  of  the  Most  High,  and  none  was  able  up  to  this 
day  to  add  to  it.  The  same  is  the  case  with  the  lofty  con- 
ception of  human  nature  which  Moses  proclaims  (Gene- 
sis i.)  and  David  sings  in  inspired  lays  (Psalms  viii.)  ;  the 
threefold  covenant,  viz.,  with  man  (Genesis  ix.  8-17),  with 
Abraham  (ibid,  xvii.)  and  with  Israel  (Exodus  xix.  and 
xxiv.),  which  re-echoes  so  from  all  books  of  the  Bible  that 
the  term  Berith, "  covenant,"  recurs  no  less  than  two  hundred 
and  fifty  times,  and  none  maintains  that  he  advanced  this 
doctrine,  or  added  anything  to  it.  The  same  is  the  case  with 
the  institutions  connected  with  it,  viz.,  circumcision,  Sab- 
bath, New  Moon,  the  three  high  feasts,  the  duty  of  right- 
eousness, holiness  and  worship.  All  this  we  find  present  in 
the  mind  of  every  author  that  contributed  to  the  collection 
called  Holy  Writ,  without  any  claim  to  originality  in  all 
these  matters,  and  these  taken  together  make  the  essentiality 
of  Israel's  religion ;  hence  the  outspoken  confession  that  the 
Thorah  of  Moses  preceded  all  other  books  and  parts  of  books. 
(e)  The  main  historical  data  narrated  in  the  Pentateuch 
also  recur  in  the  scriptural  records.  There  is  none  which 
alludes  not  to  the  fact  that  the  Hebrews  were  the  descend- 
ants of  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob.  Also  that  Jacob  went  to 
Aram,  served  Laban  for  his  daughter,  and  was  then  called 
Israel,  is  mentioned  by  the  prophet  Hosea  (xii.).  The  fact 
of  Israel's  sojourn  in  Egypt,  the  exodus  and  remaining  forty 


pRONAOs  TO  Holy  Writ.  169 

years  in  the  wilderness  re-echoes  from  most  all  books,  as 
also  the  story  of  Baal  Peor  (Numbers  xxv.),  and  of  Balak 
and  Balaam  (ibid,  xxiii.  and  xxiv.),  especially  from  Hosea 
(xi.  1 ;  xii.  10;  xiii.  4),  Amos  (ii.  10)*  and  Micah  (v.  1-5), 
and  mentions  especially  Moses,  Aaron  and  Miriam.  The 
occurrences  in  the  wilderness  toward  the  end  of  Moses'  life 
are  re-told  by  Yiphthach  in  Judges  xi.  12-28.  The  fact  that 
Aaron  was  appointed  a  Nahi  in  Egypt,  and  afterward  the 
Cohen,  is  referred  to  in  1  Samuel  ii.  27,  28  by  the  Man  of  Elo- 
him.  1  Samuel  xii.  it  is  this  prophet  who  repeats  the  story 
of  Jacob  going  to  Egypt  and  of  Moses  and  Aaron  leading 
them  out  of  that  country.  1  Kings  ii.,  the  Thorah  of  Moses 
as  a  written  book  containing  ordinances,  commandments 
and  testimonies,  as  also  in  Psalms  xix.,  are  reported,  so  that 
as  far  as  facts  are  concerned  we  need  go  no  further,  although 
we  might  refer  to  many  more  passages,  as  for  instance,  the 
Asaph  chapters  (Psalms  Ixxviii.,  Ixxx.,  Ixxxi.),  and  espe- 
cially Psalms  cxxxvi.  This  suffices  to  establish  the  fact 
advanced  at  the  head  of  this  paragraph. 

4.  There  are  a  number  of  arguments  e  silentio  in  support 
of  the  antiquity  and  authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch  which 
in  connection  with  the  foregoing  are  of  considerable  weight. 
Mark  the  following  :    . 

(a)  About  eleven  hundred  and  fifty  Hebrew  roots,  aci  no 
less  new  formations  of  words  from  existing  roots  occur  in 
Prophets  and  Hagiography,  which  are  not  found  in  the 
Pentateuch.  Take  away  the  Aramaic  portions  in  Daniel 
and  Ezra,  and  the  Pentateuch  will  be  found  to  contain  much 
more  than  one-fourth  of  the  Hebrew  of  the  whole  Bible. 
This  marks  the  progress  of  the  Hebrew  language  after  the 
five  books  of  Moses  had  been  written,  most  visible  in  the 
books  of  Isaiah,  Micah,  Psalms,  Proverbs  and  Job,  and 
points  directly  to  the  antiquity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

(b)  The  failure  of  all  critics  not  only  to  fix  with  any 
degree  of  certainty  the  time  when  the  Pentateuch,  or  any 

*Amos  also  knows  the  story  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  and  tells  it 
with  the  same  unusual  verb  "Dn*1  as  Moses  did.    See  Amos  iv.  2. 


170  The  Authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

part  thereof,  was  written — simply  because  the  history  of  the 
Hebrew  language  is  unknown  to  them — but  also  to  discover 
any  anthropological,  geographical  or  topographical  error,  as 
far  as  Egypt,  Arabia  and  Palestine  are  concerned,  in  the 
whole  Pentateuch.  This,  as  well  as  the  exact  location  of 
places  and  the  life-like  descriptions  of  persons  and  events 
points  undoubtedly  to  an  author  cotemporary  with  the 
events  and  perfectly  at  home  in  those  localities.  For  in- 
stances of  this  kind  we  may  point  especially  to  the  ad- 
dresses and  songs  of  Moses  in  Deuteronomy  and  Exodus 
XV.,  and  the  prayer  of  Moses  (Psalms  xc.  and  xci.).  It  is 
not  merely  the  antique  form  of  the  poetry  and  the  concrete 
terms,  it  is  the  clearness  and  exactness  of  the  contents 
which  exclude  any  idea  of  a  later  author,  especially  in  the 
above  psalms,  in  which  the  last  days  of  Moses  in  the  wilder- 
ness, with  all  the  horrors  of  the  wilderness,  the  death  of  a 
whole  generation  before  his  mind,  with  a  small  band  of  sur- 
vivors approaching  their  end,  are  so  vividly  described. 

(c)  The  entire  disregard  in  the  Pentateuch  to  the  Later 
Prophets  is  characteristic.  No  notice  is  taken  of  the  un- 
favorable sentiments  of  prophets  and  psalmists  to  the  sacri- 
ficial cults  in  general,  to  the  Bamoth,  the  altars  on  the  heights 
in  particular,  and  to  all  the  innovations  proposed  by  the 
prophet  Ezekiel.  This  could  not  be  the  case,  if  the  Thorah 
had  been  written  late  in  the  prophetical  millenium.  Nor 
could  those  passages  and  penal  laws  pointed  out  above  have 
been  accepted  in  the  law— in  spirit  so  contrary  to  the  teach- 
ings of  the  prophets  and  psalmists — if  it  had  been  revised 
and  re-edited  at  a  later  date.  Not  even  the  musical  reforms 
pressed  so  emphatically  by  those  who  returned  from  Baby- 
lon, as  is  evident  from  Chronicles  and  Ezra,  were  given  a 
support  in  the  law. 

(d)  The  absence  of  any  fixed  doctrinal  formula  of  im- 
mortality of  the  soul  or  resurrection  of  the  body  with  any 
kind  of  future  reward  and  punishment  is  proof  positive 
almost  of  the  antiquity  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  indefi- 
nite ideas  of  eschatological  matters  correspond  only  with 
ancient  Egypt,  by  no  means  with  the  Zabaism  or  Zoroas- 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  171 

terism  of  the  East,  not  even  with  the  older  prophets  and 
psalmists  in  Israel  whose  ideas  of  an  immortal  soul  are 
much  clearer  and  definite,  as  is  evident  from  1  Kings  xvii, 
17-24 ;  2  Kings  iv.  20-37  ;  Psalms  viii.  xvi.  and  xlix. ;  Isaiah 
xxvi.  19  further  illustrated  in  Ezekiel  xxxvii.  Had  the  Pen- 
tateuch been  written  or  rewritten  at  a  later  date  none  can 
doubt  that  a  fixed  formula  of  this  doctrine  would  be  in  it. 

5.  Last,  although  no  less  important,  the  direct  testimony 
to  the  antiquity  of  the  Pentateuch  from  Chronicles,  Ezra 
and  Malachi  must  be  considered.  The  main  portion  of 
Chronicles,  we  have  seen  in  the  previous  chapter,  was 
written  before  the  advent  of  Ezra,  nearer  to  the  Babylonian 
captivity  than  any  other  book  besides  the  three  last 
prophets.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  chronist  had 
before  him  the  written  Thorah  of  Moses,  which,  he  states, 
existed  in  the  time  of  King  David  (1  Chron  xvi.  9)  at  the 
first  occasion  he  had  to  refer  to  it.  He  refers  again  and 
again  to  it  in  the  time  of  David  (ibid.  xxii.  12;  xxix.  19), 
of  Solomon  (2  Chron.  viii.  13),  of  Rehabeam  (xii.  1),  of  Asa 
(xiv.  3),  of  Jehoshaphat,  who  appointed  teachers  to 
visit  the  cities  of  Judah  with  "  the  book  of  the  Thorah  of 
Jehovah,"  and  they  did  teach  it  publicly  (xvii.  7-9).  He 
reports  then  again  the  Thorah  in  the  time  of  King  Hezekiah 
(xxx.  16).  When  he  reports  that  "the  book  of  the  Thorah" 
was  found  in  the  sanctuary  (xxxiv.  14,  15),  which  he  further 
on  calls  "the  book  of  the  Covenant"  (verse  30),  he  certainly 
could  not  intend  to  say  that  a  new  book,  one  unknown 
before,  was  discovered.  No  author  will  thus  contradict  his 
own  statements.  There  is  no  cause  to  suspect  the  chronist 
of  false  reports.  Still,  however  this  may  be,  he  proves  to  a 
certainty  that  the  Pentateuch  as  it  is  existed  in  his  time, 
was  known  as  the  Thorah  of  Jehovah,  the  book  of  Moses, 
and  was  generally  believed  to  have  existed  in  the  same 
form  at  least  up  to  the  time  of  King  David.  Later  on  the 
prophet  Malachi  closes  his  prophecy  with  the  same  solemn 
testimony  :  "  Remember  the  Thorah  of  Moses,  my  servant, 
which  I  commanded  him  at  Horeb  upon  all  Israel  ordi- 
nances and  statutes.''     There  comes  to   all  this  the   solemn 


172  The  Authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

testimony  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  the  elders,  priests  and  Levites, 
of  all  the  people  assembled  in  holy  convocation  at  Jeru- 
salem, from  the  first  to  the  twenty-fourth  day  of  the 
seventh  month,  when  the  Thorah  was  read  and  expounded 
to  them,  and  all  of  them  acknowledged  it  as  the  genuine 
Thorah  of  Jehovah  Elohim  (Nehemiah  ix.  3)  given  by 
Moses  on  Mount  Sinai  (verses  13  and  14  and  x.  30),  con- 
firmed it  with  two  solemn  affirmations,  by  the  oath,  and 
signing  their  names  to  the  document  to  convey  all  this  to 
posterity ;  all  of  which  is  preserved  in  the  viii.  ix.  and  x. 
chapters  of  Nehemiah.  All  speculations,  however  inge- 
nious and  plausible  to  contradict  this  fact,  are  worthless. 
In  the  time  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Malachi  and  the  Chronist 
the  Pentateuch  was  generally  known  and  firmly  believed 
to  be  the  Thorah  of  Jehovah,  the  Thorah  of  Moses, 
the  Thorah  revealed  on  Mount  Sinai.  The  groundless 
hypothesis,  that  Ezra  wrote,  amended  or  interpolated  the 
Thorah,  is  a  forlorn  hope  and  can  not  be  sustained  by  any 
known  fact.  His  cotemporaries  solemnly  swore  that  it  is 
the  Thorah  of  Moses  and  not  of  Ezra.  The  Samaritans, 
Avho  did  not  accept  any  of  the  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  re- 
forms, not  even  the  other  books  of  Scriptures,  accepted  the 
Thorah  in  the  ancient  writing.  In  the  post -biblical  litera- 
ture prior  to  the  Talmud,  Ezra  is  not  mentioned  any  more, 
not  even  in  the  forty-ninth  chapter  of  Ben  Sira's  book, 
where  the  prophets  Zerubabel,  Joshua  and  Nehemiah  are 
glorified.  Josephus  and  Philo  know  nothing  of  Ezra  as 
author  or  lawgiver.*  All  this  Avould  be  impossible  if  Ezra 
had  written  the  Thorah  or  even  any  part  thereof.  Therefore 
we  know  from  all  foregoing  arguments  of  this  chapter,  that 
there  always  was  a  Thorah ;  a  written  Thorah,  a  Thorah  of 

*A11  anybody  knows  of  or  about  Ezra  must  be  from  that  book  or 
the  traditions  recorded  in  the  Talmud,  and  these  two  only  sources 
never  intimate  that  he,  in  regard  to  the  Thorah,  was  any  more 
than  a  learned  scribe  and  expounder,  who  in  a  very  few  instances 
filled  up  a  defective  passage,  which  he  marked  by  points  above  the 
letters.  (See  Numbers  Rabba  37,  24  to  i:^  h]}  1p2  n^h  and  Tikkun 
Sopherim,  of  which  we  speak  in  the  next  chapter. 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  173 

Jehovah,  a  Thorah  of  Moses,  prior  to  all  other  biblical 
books,  that  the  contents  of  that  Thorah  -were  in  doctrines 
and  narratives  in  the  main  at  least  identical  with  the  one 
before  us ;  but  we  know  not  yet  their  perfect  identity,  nor 
do  we  know  yet  when  and  by  whom  it  was  cast  in  the  form 
as  it  is  before  us.     We  must  continue  the  investigation. 

6.  The  three  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  were 
certainly  not  edited  in  the  time  of  Kings  in  Israel  or 
Judah.  They  are  strenuously  democratic-theocratic  in  all 
their  provisions  and  narrations.  No  room  is  left  to  a 
king,  no  prerogative  is  given  to  any,  no  sphere  for  the 
exercise  of  the  royal  authority  is  intimated.  This  demo- 
cratic spirit  is  so  clearly  expressed — and  this  is  to  be 
especially  remembered — that  God  is  never  called  "King  " 
in  all  the  Pentateuch,  nowhere  before  Samuel  (xii.  12).  Such 
a  code  could  not  have  been  written  or  edited  in  any  country 
governed  by  a  king.  That  these  three  books  were  not  writ- 
ten after  that  time  is  evident  from  the  foregoing  arguments 
in  this  chapter.  Some  of  the  negative  critics  admit  this, 
when  they  maintain  that  the  book  of  the  Thorah  found  in 
the  temple  by  Hilkiah,  the  high  priest,  and  brought  to  King 
Joshiah  (2  Kings  xxiii. ;  2  Chronicles  xxxiv.)  was  Deuter- 
onomy, which  the  prophet  Jeremiah  forged,  and  in  con- 
spiracy with  the  priest,  imposed  on  the  king  as  the  work  of 
Moses;  Before  arguing  this  point  it  must  be  taken  into 
consideration  that  if  this  is  so  then  the  three  middle  books 
of  the  Pentateuch  must  be  much  older  than  Deuteronomy. 
There  could  be  no  reason  to  forge  that  book  nine  centuries 
after  the  death  of  Moses  upon  his  name ;  had  he  not  been 
known  as  the  redeemer,  lawgiver  and  founder  of  the  institu- 
tions extant  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah.  It  can  not  be  main- 
tained that  the  name  also  was  an  invention,  because  either  it 
was  used  to  give  authority  to  the  book,  then  the  name  must 
have  been  identified  with  this  authority,  or  the  invention 
was  foolish,  as  historical  names  of  high  authority  like  Samuel, 
David,  Solomon,  Elijah,  Isaiah,  must  have  been  well  known 
then,  and  any  one  of  them  would  have  conferred  a  higher 
authority  upon  the  pseudonymous  book  than  the  unknown 


174  The  Authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

and  foreign  Moses.  If  Moses  was  known  as  the  redeemer, 
lawgiver  and  founder  of  the  institutions,  it  could  not  have 
been  by  tradition  nine  centuries  post  feotum,  there  must  have 
existed  documents  to  this  effect.  These  documents  —  the 
evidence  is  too  overwhelming — must  have  been  besides  the 
three  middle  books  of  the  Thorah,  also  Genesis,  or  such  other 
documents  in  which  the  subject  matter  of  Deuteronomy  was 
contained,  to  which  it  literally  refers  in  almost  every  chap- 
ter^in  narration,  doctrine  and  law.*  However,  there  exists 
no  passage  and  no  intimation  in  any  book  of  the  Bible  or  else- 
where to  justify  the  ungenerous  and  unethical  hypothesis,  that 
Jeremiah  or  any  other  prophet  or  priest  in  Israel  committed 
literary  forgery,  pious  fraud  or  impious  dissimulation ;  or  to 
assume  that  Deuteronomy  was  the  book  found  in  the  days  of 
King  Joshiah.  The  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles  were  writ- 
ten undoubtedly  by  authors  of  ability,  who  would  not  con- 
tradict themselves  in  matters  of  facts  in  the  same  book.  And 
yet  in  2  Kings  xiv.  and  2  Chronicles  xxv. — besides  many 
other  passages — the  existence  and  authority  of  Deuteronomy 
is  expressly  acknowledged  by  quoting  from  it  literally  verse 
6  in  Kings  and  verse  4  in  Chronicles.  Still  further  on,  in 
Kings  xvii.  and  Chronicles  xxx.  and  xxxi.,  in  the  time  of 
King  Hezekiah,  the  existence  and  authority  of  the  whole 

*As  most  striking  reference  of  this  kind  compare  Deuteronomy 
i.  9-18  to  Exodus  xviii.  26;  Moses  being  omitted  in  the  Deuteron- 
omy passage  which  closes,  "And  I  commanded  you  then  all  the 
words  which  ye  shall  do."  Compare  Deuteronomy  i.  to  iii.  with 
the  corresponding  passages  in  Numbers ;  also  iv.  1-3  to  Numbers 
xxv.  1-9 ;  ibid.  iv.  9-13  to  Exodus  xix. ;  ibid,  three  times  "  "TiV  "itJ'Xa 
iu  Deuteronomy  v.,  and  after  verse  19  compare  to  Exodus  xx.  15-19 ; 
ibid.  Deuteronomy  xiv.  and  Leviticus  xi. ;  Deuteronomy  xxviii.  to 
Leviticus  xxvi.,  and  so  on  throughout  the  book  with  numerous 
references  to  Genesis.  The  difference  of  expressions  in  the  Deca- 
logue and  some  laws  prove  that  Moses  was  the  author  of  Deuter- 
onomy, as  none  else  would  have  attempted  these  changes  and 
emendations.  The  defectiveness  of  some  laws,  as  in  Deuteronomy 
xxiii.  1-3  points  most  distinctly  to  laws  of  prior  existence,  in  this 
case  Leviticus  xviii.  as  the  emendations  to  other  laws  again  demon- 
strate the  authorship  of  Moses. 


Pkonaos  to  Holy  Wkit.  175 

Thorah  is  expressly  acknowledged.  Anyway,  no  fair  critic 
can  presume  that  two  pages  beyond  the  author  or  com- 
piler contradicts  all  that  and  meant  to  say  there  that  Deuter- 
onomy or  any  part  of  the  Pentateuch,  then  unknown,  was 
produced  or  found  in  the  temple.  Besides  Kings  and 
Chronicles  inform  us  expressly  that  nmnil  ")5D  the  book 
of  the  Thorah,  viz.,  the  main  book  of  the  Thorah,  was  found 
in  the  temple,  which  in  both  sources  is  called  then  "15D 
jin^n  "  The  Book  of  the  Covenant,"  which  we  know  from 
Exodus  xxiv,  4-7  was  the  principal  book  written  by  Moses. 
There  exists  not  the  least  cause  to  maintain  that  it  was  any 
other  book  except  an  ancient  manuscript  supposed,  perhaps, 
to  be  the  original  book  written  by  Moses.  In  hearing  the 
contents  of  the  book  the  king  rent  his  garments,  and  sent 
to  the  prophetess  Huldah — not  to  Jeremiah,  who  was  not 
known  yet  as  a  prophet  and  was  a  very  young  man — to  in- 
quire of  the  Lord  as  to  what  evil  would  come  over  the  land, 
"  because  our  fathers  hearkened  not  to  the  words  of  this  book 
to  do  like  all  that  is  written  concerning  us."  This  is  repeated 
in  clearer  language  in  2  Chronicles.  Hence  it  was  not  a  new 
book  or  one  not  known  or  not  observed  at  that  time,  it  is 
only  the  fathers,  meaning  Menasseh  and  Amon,  who  did  not 
do  as  prescribed  in  the  said  book.  The  cause  of  the  terror 
which  the  book  struck  was  simply  that  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant  closed  with  Leviticus  xxv.  and  xxvi.,  and  the  lat- 
ter chapter  contains  the  prophecies  of  Moses  concerning  all 
the  evils  to  befall  the  people  breaking  the  covenant  and  de- 
serting their  God  and  his  law.  To  this  the  message  of  the 
prophetess  Huldah  refers,  which  is  also  stated  extensively 
in  the  name  of  many  prophets  in  2  Kings  xxi.  10-17,  and  is 
repeated  in  Jeremiah  in  most  all  of  his  messages.  All  this, 
no  doubt,  was  known  in  the  days  of  King  Joshiah,  but  it 
was  not  believed  to  be  the  genuine  prophecy  of  Moses.  The 
ancient  manuscript  found  in  the  temple  proved  to  them  that 
such  was  the  prophecy  of  Moses,  and  this  struck  terror  into 
the  hearts  and  started  Jeremiah  on  his  prophetical  mission 
of,  "  the  end  approaches,"  taken  from  Amos'  TpH  N2  (viii. 


176  The  Authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

2),  announced  to  Israel,  "  I  will  hasten  my  word  to  per- 
form it."* 

7.  The  existence  and  authority  of  the  Thorah  are  trace- 
able up  to  the  time  of  Samuel  in  the  historical  books,  the  old- 
est prophets.  Proverbs  and  Psalms.  In  regard  to  the  older 
prophets  attention  is  called  to  the  following  special  points  : 

(a)  The  main  events  narrated  in  the  Thorah  are  noticed 
in  these  books.  Such  are  the  origin  of  the  Hebrew  people 
and  its  religion  from  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  (Micah  vii. 
20;  Hosea  xii.  4,  5;  Amos  vii.  16);  the  destruction  of 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah  with  the  same  exceptional  term  of 
n^Snn  ']")5n^1  nOiin^  as  in  Genesis  xix.  (Amos  iv.  11 ; 
Isaiah  i.  9,  10,  also  iii.  9  and  xiii.  19);  Israel's  sojourn  in 
Egypt,  the  redemption  by  Moses,  Aaron  and  Miriam  and  the 
forty  years  in  the  wilderness  (Amos  ii.  10;  iii.  1;  v.  25,) 
where  also  the  prophets  and  Nazirites  are  noticed  (Hosea 
ii.  17;  xi.  1;  xii.  14;  xiv.  5;  Micah  vi.  4);  the  story  of 
Balak  and  Bileam  (Micah  vi.  6)  and  the  location  where  it 
occurred;  so  also  the  story  at  Baal  Peor  (Hosea  ix.  10). 

(6)  The  imitations  and  quotations  from  the  Pentateuch. 
Such  are  Joel  ii.  13  like  Exodus  xxxiv.  6 ;  ii.  16  like  Deuter- 
onomy viii.  10;  ii.  17 ;  and  iv.  17  like  Numbers  xv.  41  '•^  ^J{^ 
D2^'^'?^^  ;  Amos  iii.  14  like  Exodus  xxxii.  34  »-|ps3  C3V2 ; 
iv.  6-11  is  an  abstract  of  Leviticus  xxvi.  the  phrase  iih  0^^ 
^^7  "li/.tDtr'n  changed  into  the  refrain  n^  Qiint:^  iih>^^, 
Hosea  i.  7  ^^2  D^n^^u'im  like  Deuteronomy  xxxii.  19 ;  i.  9 
is  like  Deuteronomy  xxvi.  16-19 ;  ii.  1  is  like  Genesis  xiii, 
16  and  xxi.  17  ;  v.  8  is  like  Numbers  x.  1-10  with  the  identi- 
cal words  of  "IfilJi-',  nn^^^Vn  and  l^^nni;  v.  10  is  like  Deut- 
eronomy xxvii.  37,  with  the  identical  '^'J^jl  ^DD ',  xii.  10  and 
xiii.  4  are  literally  the  first  verse  of  the  Decalogue.  Isaiah 
i.  2  is  an  imitation  of  Deuteronomy  xxxii.  1.  Besides  all  of 
them  repeated  the  words  of  Moses  (Deuteronomy  xxx.  8), 

*The  prophecy  of  Jeremiah  that  the  Babylonian  captivity  would 
last  seventy  years,  was  based  upon  the  prophecy  of  Moses  (Leviti- 
cus xxvi.  32-34).  The  number  seventy  must  be  understood  as  the 
ordinarv  lifetime  of  a  man. 


1 


pRONAos  TO  Holy  Writ.  177 

'^niDC'  riN*  7n'?X  ^^  DC^I  ( Joel  m  4 ;  Amos  ix.  14 ;  Hosea 
vi.  11.)  This  phrase  passed  into  almost  every  book  of  the 
Bible. 

Hosea  (iv.  15)  informs  us  that  the  people  also  in  the 
kingdom  of  Israel  swore  *^  ^n  by  the  Living  God  of  Israel. 
They  speak  of  the  "Covenant"  by  which  Israel  became  a 
kingdom  of  priests  (Hosea  iv.  6 ;  viii.  1 ;  Isaiah  xxiv.  5) ;  so 
Micah  speaks  of  the  grace  and  truth,  or  the  love  and  faithful- 
ness which  God  has  sworn  to  our  ancestors  from  ancient 
days  (vii.  20).  They  speak  of  the  sacrificial  polity,  the 
altar,  the  priesthood,  the  sacrifices  as  ancient  institutions, 
not  as  a  form  of  Pagan  worship  (Joel  i.  13;  ii.  17),  and 
Amos  brings  in  connection  with  Chaggim  "  feasts,"  Atzeroth, 
generally  rendered  "  feast  of  conclusion,"  which  word  in  this 
signification  occurs  in  the  Pentateuch  only. 

They  make  mention  of  Vpm  ^^  ni)n  "  the  Thorah  of 
Jehovah  and  his  statutes  "  (Amos  ii.  4) ;  *l\l'7X  n"lin  "  the 
Thorah  of  thy  Elohim,"  and  niim  fl^D  ''  the  Covenant 
and  the  Thorah"  (Hosea  iv.  6  and  viii.  1),  im'^k^  min 
"  the  Thorah  of  our  Elohim  "  (Isaiah  i.  10)  in  parallel  with 
"^  ^yi  "  The  Word  of  Jehovah,"  of  which  he,  like  Micah, 
knows  that  the  Thorah  will  go  forth  from  Zion  and  the  word 
of  God  from  Jerusalem  to  all  nations  (ii.  3).  He  knows 
that  the  Thorah  is  not  the  Theudah  or  prediction  (viii.  20) 
and  that  it  consists  of  more  than  one  book  which  stands  in 
connection  with  Chok  or  statute,  and  Berith  or  covenant 
(xxiv.  5),  and  that  his  people  refuse  to  obey  the  *''  n"1in 
"The  Thorah  of  Jehovah"  (xxx.  8).  He  speaks  of  Sepher 
a  book  (xxix.  11,  12),  and  even  of  two  kinds  of  Holy  Writs, 
the  Luach  Ithom  and  the  Sepher  Chuckoh,  and  tells  us  ex- 
pressly (xxxiv.  16),  "Inquire  ye  from  the  Book  of  Jeho- 
vah" ;  hence  we  must  conclude  that  the  Thorah  was  written 
a  Sepher  Chuckoh.  We  know  it  was  the  Thorah  which 
stands  in  connection  with  Berith,  the  covenant,  which,  to 
the  best  of  our  knowledge,  was  the  Pentateuch  only 

8.  It  seems,  therefore,  probable  that  the  three  middle 
books  of  the  Pentateuch  were  recast  in  their  present  form 


178  The  Authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

from  the  Mosaic  documents,  by  editors  from  the  period  of 
the  Judges.  In  this  period  there  are  but  two  ages  when 
such  an  important  work  might  have  been  accomplished  ;  (1) 
from  and  after  the  conquest  and  occupation  of  Canaan  by 
Joshua  to  the  time  of  Deborah  and  Barak,  which  we  may 
call  the  Phineas  age;  and  (2)  the  time  of  Samuel  and  his 
immediate  disciples,  the  first  Bene  Hannebiim.  In  regard  to 
the  Phineas  age,  we  read  in  Joshua  xxiv.  31  and  Judges  ii. 
7,  "And  Israel  served  God  all  the  days  of  Joshua,  and  all 
the  elders  that  lived  long  after  Joshua,  who  had  known  all 
the  (great)  works  of  God,  that  he  had  done  for  Israel." 
This  age  of  piety  and  knowledge  re-echoes  yet  in  the  De- 
borah song,  and  it  appears  from  there  (Judges  v.  6)  to  have 
reached  into  the  time  of  Shamgar  ben  Anoth,  the  immedi- 
ate predecessor  of  Deborah.  It  was  evidently  a  literary  age 
when  laws  were  written  (ibid,  verses  9  and  14)  '^  to  ennoble 
the  people,''  and  men  were  searching  into  the  law  to  estab- 
lish justice  (verse  10)  and  there  were  expert  scribes  in  Zeb- 
ulon  (verse  14).  It  is  probable  that  then,  even  by  the 
immediate  disciples  of  Moses,  like  Phineas,  Othniel  ben 
Kenaz  and  their  cotemporaries,  the  Mosaic  material  was 
recast  for  the  benefit  of  priests  and  people  into  the  more 
practical  form  of  Exodus  and  Leviticus,  as  these  two  books 
contain  nothing  which  points  to  a  date  after  the  Deborah 
age,  and  after  that  came  the  retrogression  into  the  rude 
ages  of  Jephthah  and  Samson,  arrested  by  Samuel  and  his 
disciples.  The  prophet  Samuel,  according  to  Psalms  xcix. 
6,  7  ranks  with  Moses  and  Aaron,  among  those  who  pro- 
claimed God's  name,  who  cried  to  God  and  he  responded  to 
them  :  "  In  a  pillar  of  cloud  would  he  speak  to  them ;  they 
guarded  his  testimonies  and  he  gave  them  statutes,"  This 
sounds  very  much  like  placing  Samuel  among  the  law- 
givers, so  that  the  Talmud  could  maintain  '7N'l,t3C^  '7')^t^ 
Tl^m^  ilt^i2  1^2^  "  Samuel  equipoises  Moses  and  Aaron." 
The  next  consideration  is  that  Samuel  was  the  author  of 
the  book  of  Judges,  taken  from  the  *'  Fook  of  the  Wars  of 
Jehovah,"  and  after  Judges  opens  a  new  method  of  histori- 
ography  and  a  new  epoch  of  Hebrew  language  and  litera- 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  179 

ture ;  as  if  the  old  Mosaic  and  post-Mosaic  records  had  been 
closed,  after  the  material  for  Pentateuch,  Joshua  and  Judges 
had  been  transcribed  from  them,  new  records  were  opened 
and  continued  thereafter  by  the  prophets  and  the  Scribes 
and  Chancellors  of  the  royal  court.  Besides  all  this,  it 
appears  that  Judges  and  the  first  part  of  Samuel  are  in 
spirit  closer  to  Numbers  than  to  any  other  book,  and  several 
passages  in  Numbers  have  their  counterparts  in  Judges,  as 
for  instance  Judges  i.  17  and  Numbers  x.  3-5,  also  Deuter- 
onomy iii.  14;  Judges  x.  3-5;  Numbers  xxx.  39-42;  Judges 
xi.  11,  12-28,  and  Numbers  xxxi. ;  Judges  xiii.  7  and  Num- 
bers vi.  1-5,  while  none  reach  beyond  the  time  of  Samuel. 
The  last  of  the  Balaam's  poems  (Numbers  xxiv.  15-24) 
bears  the  imprint  of  Samuel,  and  some  maintain  also  his 
name.  There  must  be  added  to  all  this,  that  from  and 
after  Samuel  we  have  before  us  detailed  history;  if  at 
any  time  after  Samuel  such  an  important  literary  monu- 
ment as  the  Pentateuch  had  been  erected,  some  notice  of  it 
must  have  been  left  in  chronographers,  psalmists  or  proph- 
ets, which,  however,  is  not  the  case.  Thus  we  are  again 
obliged  to  admit  that  the  recasting  of  the  Mosaic  documents 
could  not  have  taken  place  after  the  days  of  Samuel. 

9.  The  question  arises,  do  the  documents  before  us  com- 
pel us  to  admit  that  the  Mosaic  documents  were  edited  after 
the  death  of  Moses?  In  this  connection  the  following  points 
must  be  considered  : 

(a)  There  are  anachronistic  passages  in  the  Pentateuch. 
Exodus  xvi.  35  and  36  closes  the  narrative  of  the  manna 
and  the  first  falling  of  quail  in  the  wilderness  of  Zin,  thus : 
"The  children  of  Israel  ate  the  manna  forty  years,  till  they 
came  to  the  inhabited  land ;  they  ate  the  manna  till  they 
came  into  the  borders  of  the  land  of  Canaan.  An  omer  is 
the  tenth  part  of  an  ephah."  This  could  have  been  written 
only  after  they  had  come  into  the  land,  and  had  a  different 
measure  of  capacity ;  hence  after  the  death  of  Moses.  Le- 
viticus xxi.  is  headed,  "  Say  to  the  priests,  sons  of  Aaron," 
contrary  to  all  similar  passages,  which  open  invariably, 
*^ Speak  (and  not  say)  to  Aaron  and  his  sons."    Then  verse  10 


180  The  Authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

occurs,  "  And  the  priest  greater  than  his  brothers."  These 
verses  could  have  been  written  only  after  the  death  of  Aaron, 
as  the  latter  had  no  brother  priests,  hence  could  not  be 
called  the  greatest  of  them.  Numbers  xiii.  24  is  an  explan- 
atory note,  giving  the  reason  why  that  place  was  called 
Nahol  Eshcol,  called  so  by  "  the  children  of  Israel  "  in  after 
times,  not  by  the  spies,  but  after  the  death  of  Moses.  The 
same  is  the  case  with  Numbers  xxii.  20  and  27-30 ;  xxxiii. 
34rA2,  as  quoted  above.  The  only  anachronism  in  Deuteron- 
omy xvii.  14-20,  the  law  concerning  the  king,  which  is  in 
dissonance  with  the  whole  Mosaic  legislation,  also  may  be 
ascribed  to  Samuel,  as  the  last  chapter,  in  which  the  death 
of  Moses  is  narrated,  is  given  to  Joshua.  We  notice  no 
passages  in  Genesis  that  must  necessarily  have  been  written 
after  Moses.  It  has  been  stated  before  that  all  land  west  of 
the  Euphrates  was  called  by  the  Eastern  nations  Arab,  "  the 
West,"  and  by  the  Egyptians  Eber,  the  other  side  of  the 
Red  Sea  and  the  Isthmus,  hence  all  that  country  was  called 
"Land  of  the  Ebrim,"  or  Hebrews.  The  supposed  anachron- 
ism of  r^J^D  ?X  ''J^JDm  "  the  Canaanite  was  then  in  the 
land,"  is  none  with  the  author  of  Genesis,  and  would  be 
none  even  if  Abraham  was  supposed  to  have  said  it,  as  it 
means  as  well :  "And  the  Canaanite  had  just  then  come  into 
the  interior  of  the  land,"  viz.,  when  Abraham  came,  as  its 
actual  home  was  at  the  western  and  southern  borders  of  the 
land  (Genesis  x.  19;  Numbers  xiii.  29).  Genesis  xxxvi.  31- 
39  is  not  necessarily  an  anachronism.  It  begins  :  "  These  are 
the  kings  which  reigned  in  the  land  of  Edom  before  a  king 
reigned  (or  a  government  was  established)  to  the  children 
of  Israel."  Then  eight  kings,  all  foreigners,  are  named, 
evidently  successive  conquerors,  or  governors,  placed  there 
by  the  Pharaohs.  All  of  them  may  have  reigned  over  the 
Horites  and  the  children  of  Esau  before  the  latter  achieved 
superiority  and  indei^endence,  and  gave  kings  to  the  land. 
From  the  emigration  of  Esau  to  Seir  to  the  exodus  of 
Israel  300  years  elapsed — too  long  a  time  almost  for  eight 
successive  kings,    The  'l'?0"*|'!'D  with  its  peculiar  construe- 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  181 

tion,  preserved  also  in  Chronicles,  does  not  necessarily  sig- 
nify any  king ;  it  means  also  a  government  organized.  In 
this  sense  we  find  in  Deuter.  xxxiii.  5,  Moses  is  called  King 
of  Jeshurun,  "  he  having  gathered  around  himself  the  heads 
of  the  people,  uniting  the  tribes  of  Israel,"  i.  e.,  establish  the 
government  whose  head  he  was.  In  the  Samaritan  Joshua, 
Moses,  Joshua  and  others  are  plainly  called  kings. 

(b)  There  are,  Exodus  xxxiv.  29-33  and  Numbers  xii.  3, 
two  passages  speaking  of  Moses  in  so  laudatory  a  manner 
that  it  seems  not  Moses  had  written  them.  No  man  of  that 
eminence  will  write  of  himself  how  his  face  was  shining 
and  beaming  so  that  Aaron  and  the  people  were  afraid  to 
look  at  him  ;  or  that  he  was  the  meekest  of  all  men. 

(c)  There  are  in  the  Pentateuch  definitions  of  names  of 
persons  which  are  not  deemed  correct,  and  point  to  a  later 
hand. 

(d)  There  are  numerous  repetitions  in  the  Pentateuch 
which  could  not  be  the  work  of  one  writer,  it  is  maintained. 
This  point,  however,  is  not  well  taken.  As  regards  the  repe- 
tition of  laws,  the  ancient  expounders,  as  recorded  in  the 
Talmud,  established  that  the  repetition  of  any  law  contains 
an  amendment,  especially  in  Deuteronomy,  which  main- 
tains to  have  the  object  of  riXtH  n^nnH  HX  "IND  "  ex- 
pounding this  Thorah  "  (i.  5).  For  instance,  Deut.  xiv.  be- 
gins with  amending  Leviticus  xi.,  adding  thereto  that  such 
may  be  given  to  the  resident  alien  or  sold  to  the  transient 
foreigner,  they  being  not  bound  to  observe  those  dietary 
laws.  Then  from  verse  22  the  law  of  tithe  is  repeated,  to 
add  thereto  that  the  part  of  the  tithe  which  the  owner  is 
commanded  to  consume  at  "  the  place  where  the  Lord  thy 
God  will  choose  "  may  be  sold  at  home  and  the  money  used 
to  that  purpose.  Then  chapter  xv.,  the  law  concerning  the 
year  of  release,  in  order  to  add  thereto  that  debts  must  not 
be  collected  during  the  Sabbath  3^ear  (the  rabbis  held  all  debts 
were  canceled)  and  that  the  transient  foreigner  was  not  in- 
cluded in  this  law.  Such  is  the  case  with  every  repetition 
of  law,  except  IRND  CDW^n  CDIDD  '^Z*-  Where  nar- 
rations are  repeated,  as  the  same  having  happened  to  two 


182  The  Authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

different  persons,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  is  by 
no  means  impossible.  Besides,  repetitions  of  this  kind 
occur  only  in  Genesis,  whose  author  may  have  had  before 
him  double  traditions  or  documents  in  those  particular 
cases. 

(e)  The  only  book  written  in  the  first  person  is  Deuter- 
onomy, the  others  are  written  in  the  third  person,  as  though 
another  author  had  written  the  whole  from  older  records 
before  him  or  from  traditions. 

(/)  We  find  there  but  scanty  outlines  of  Israel's 
history  in  Goshen,  and  none  from  thirty-seven  years' 
sojourning  in  the  wilderness,  viz.,  from  the  second  to  the 
fortieth  year,  a  few  episodes  in  Numbers  excepted.  And  yet 
we  know  from  Hoseaix.  10 ;  x.  1,2;  xi.  1-4  ;  xiii.  5,  6 ;  Amos 
V.  25,  26 ;  Ezekiel  xx. ;  Psalms  Ixxviii. ;  Ixxxi.  xcv.,  that  we 
possess  but  a  small  part  of  the  history  in  the  wilderness  in 
Exodus  and  Numbers.  In  regard  to  Goshen  we  learn  from 
1  Chronicles  how  little  we  know  of  its  history ;  as  for 
instance  iv.  19-23;  vi.  20-24;  viii.  11-13.  It  seems  even 
from  some  of  these  notices  that  many  of  the  Hebrews  pos- 
sessed estates  and  towns  in  Canaan,  while  their  people  were 
in  Goshen.  It  seems,  therefore,  that  the  historical  portion 
of  the  three  middle  books  is  a  mere  abstract  from  older  and 
more  extensive  records. 

(g)     There  is  no  chronological  order  in   the  first  four 

books  (nmm  "imj^OI  OnpIO  px)  as  the  Talmud  admits, 
nor  a  logical  connection  in  the  order  of  the  sections  of  laws 
(ni^^DD  pt^")")l  pt<),  except  in  Deuteronomy ;  the  fourth 
book  is  fragmentary  and  contains  pieces  which  belong 
either  to  the  preceding  books  or  also  to  Deuteronomy. 

Therefore  we  are  bound  to  admit : 

A.  That  the  Thorah  with  all  its  principles,  doctrines, 
laws,  institutions,  political,  social  and  ecclesiastical,  and  the 
cotemporary  history  as  laid  down  in  the  original  documents 
of  Moses,  was  always  known  in  Israel  and  was  always  canon 
to  the  nation,  notwithstanding  despotic  kings  and  princes 
had  sought  to  override  the  Law,  and  paganizing  multitudes, 


Pkonaos  to  Holy  Writ.  183 

that  went  astray  after  othor  gods  and  the  immoral  practices 
undermining  reason,  freedom  and  justice. 

B.  Exodus  and  Leviticus  were  edited  after  the  death  of 
Moses — in  the  Phineas  age — from  the  original  documents 
and  contain  few  of  the  editor's  additions  and  many  omis- 
sions (perhaps  also  exaggerations)  in  the  historical  portions. 

C.  Numbers  was  edited  later  on,  from  fragments  omitted 
by  the  former  and  parts  originally  belonging  to  Deuter- 
onomy. 

D.  Genesis  and  Deuteronomy  are  the  original  works  of 
Moses,  with  some  very  few  later  additions  in  Deuteronomy. 

E.  Numbers  bears  the  imprints  of  the  prophet  Samuel, 
by  whom  and  his  school  it  must  have  been  edited,  it  bears 
no  traces  of  any  later  date,  to  connect  Leviticus  with  Deu- 
teronomy. The  additions  to  Deuteronomy  also  do  not 
reach  beyond  the  time  of  Samuel. 

F.  Exodus  and  Leviticus  may  have  been  edited  any  time 
after  the  conquest — they  contain  nothing  pointing  to  a  later 
date — and  no  later  than  the  time  of  the  prophetess  Deborah. 

The  question  may  arise,  why  do  we  insist  upon  this  sys- 
tem, and  not  rather  yield  to  the  fragmentists,  Jahvists  and 
Elohists,  with  whom  the  Thorah  is  composed  of  a  number 
of  fragments  from  various  authors  of  unknown  times?  To 
this  we  reply : 

(<jj  Because  we  possess  no  documentary  evidence  what- 
ever of  the  origin  or  existence  of  any  such  fragments  at  any 
time ;  but  we  have  such  evidence  of  the  origin  and  existence 
of  the  Mosaic  documents,  in  contradiction  of  which  specu- 
lation is  of  no  value. 

(6)  Because  the  whole  Thorah  is  of  one  and  the  same 
spirit  in  principle,  doctrine,  precept  and  law,  which  must 
necessarily  come  from  one  author,  and  not  possibly  from  a 
number  of  authors. 

(c)  Had  such  fragments  existed  at  any  time,  the  biblical 
records  being  so  particular  with  registering  of  names,  must 
have  taken  notice  of  them,  which  is  not  the  case,  while  the 
Mosaic  records  are  specifically  mentioned. 

{d)     Because  the  entire  fabric  of  speculation  basing  upon 


184  The  Authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

the  Jahvistic  and  Elohistic  criteria  of  authorship  is  eo  ipso 
false  and  worthless. 

10.  The  theories  advanced,  that  the  Thorah  was  com- 
piled of  a  number  of  older  books  written  by  various  authors 
at  different  times,  with  or  without  Mosaic  portions,  are  based 
upon  the  first  hypothesis,  that  there  are  portions  in  Holy 
Writ,  in  which  God  is  called  Jehovah  and  others  in  which 
he  is  called  Elohim.  This  it  was  assumed — certainly  on  no 
holding  ground — points  to  different  authors.  Then  on  the 
strength  of  grammatical  niceties  and  supposed  repetitions 
and  contradictions  in  the  different  books,  the  division  into 
original  fragments  was  pressed  to  an  unreasonable  number, 
although  it  is  evident  that  casual  grammatical  deviations 
in  such  small  portions  of  literature  are  no  evidence  for  dif- 
ferent authors,  as  by  a  rigid  application  of  the  same  method, 
any  book,  ancient  or  modern,  could  be  split  into  fragments 
from  different  authors.  The  very  fact  that  with  this  method 
the  Pentateuch  was  split  in  twenty-five  slices,  each  of  a  differ- 
ent author,  proves  the  fallacy  of  that  method,  anyhow  to  any 
critical  reader  of  the  original.  This  method,  however,  like 
all  others,  to  prove  that  the  Thorah  was  not  of  Moses  and 
the  historical  books  were  re-edited  and  interpolated,  started 
originally  from  the  Jahvistic-Elohistic  hypothesis  and  in 
support  thereof;  this  being  refuted,  all  those  theories  fall 
with  it.  This  hypothesis,  however,  is  without  foundation 
for  the  following  reasons  : 

(a)  Every  book  of  the  Bible  was  written  by  a  Jahvist, 
none  besides  the  second  and  a  part  of  the  third  book  of 
Psalms  is  Elohistic  (Psalms  xlii.-lxxxiii.),  that  is,  the  Elo- 
him predominates  in  all  of  them.  Here  is  the  documentary 
evidence  that  the  different  names  of  God  do  not  point  to 
different  authors.  The  same  David  who  is  credited  with  the 
purely  Jahvistic  psalms  (especially  Psalms  viii.  xviii.)  is  also 
credited  with  the  Elohistic  psalms  (Psalms  li.-lxi.  andlxiii. 
Ixxi ) ;  the  same  sons  of  Korah  at  the  heads  of  Elohistic 
psalms  (Psalms  xlii.-xlix.)  are  also  credited  with  the 
Jahvistic  (Psalms  Ixxxiv.,  Ixxxv.,  Ixxxvii.  and  Ixxxviii.). 
Our  theory,  for  which  we  have  some  Scriptural  support,  is 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  185 

that  the  hymns  of  David  Avere  written  for  public  v/orship 
at  the  advanced  age  of  the  King,  after  the  ark  had  been 
brought  to  Zion,  therefore  they  are  Jahvistic,  as  he  only  in 
his  last  words  calls  himself  author  of  the  Zemiroth  Israel  (2 
Samuel  xxiii.).  His  Elohistie  psalms  were  considered  pro- 
ductions of  his  earlier  days,  as  all  the  headings  show  and 
as  the  compiler  of  the  second  book  confirms  by  calling  them 
Thephilloth  (Psalms  Ixxii.  20)  and  not  Zemiroth,  in  them  he 
omitted  the  tetragrammaton.  The  Elohistie  psalms  of  the 
Sons  of  Korah  and  Asaph  psalms,  together  with  those  of 
David,  were  only  used  at  theBamoth  worship  outside  of  Zion, 
and  the  tetragrammaton  is  omitted  in  them,  replaced  by  Elo- 
him.  The  few  Elohistie  pieces  in  Genesis  have  been  accounted 
for  as  old  documents  j^artly  adopted  and  partly  adapted  by 
the  Jahvistic  author,  Elohim  like  El  Shaddi  are  purely 
Hebraic  and  monotheistic,  marking  distinctly  the  age  of 
transition  from  the  worship  of  the  natural  forces  to  the 
cognition  of  the  absolute  and  infinite  Deity,  and  the  end  of 
that  transition  period  with  Abraham. 

(6)  The  oldest  poetical  parts  of  Scriptures  are  mainly 
Jahvistic  with  the  term  Elohim  used  alternately.  These  are 
the  songs  of  Moses,  the  poems  of  Balaam,  the  blessing  of 
Moses,  the  song  of  Deborah,  the  prayer  of  Hannah,  Psalms 
xviii.  cxxxvi.,  and  in  all  of  the  Prophets,  This  frequent 
alternation,  in  each  case  of  Elohim  with  the  tetragrammaton 
in  the  oldest  poetical  pieces,  which  could  impossibly  be  cut 
into  fragments  and  given  to  a  number  of  different  authors — 
if  even  the  headings  of  psalms  are  taken  to  be  of  later  origin 
— offer  proof  positive  that  the  Jahvistic-Elohistic  hopothesis 
is  a  fallacy.  Tliis  is  so  much  more  evident  from  such  pieces 
which  were  actually  transcribed,  like  the  eighteenth  psalm 
from  2  Samuel  xxii,,  or  Psalms  cxv,  from  cxxxv.,  or  cxliv, 
from  three  older  psalms,  or  even  in  Chronicles  from  Samuel 
and  Psalms,  the  names  of  God  are  never  changed  except 
once  in  Psalms  xviii.,  where  Elohim  is  put  instead  of  the 
tetragrammaton  ;  hence  the  transcribing  hypothesis  is  also 
worthless.  All  other  objections  raised  against  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  historical  books,  the  David- 


186  The  Authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

ian  Psalms  and  the  Solomonic  Proverbs  prove  a  failure  and 
can  only  be  taken  as  the  products  of  misunderstanding  or 
misinterpretation  of  Biblical  passages,  if  it  is  admitted  that 
documentary  evidence  opposite  speculations  is  conclusive, 
which  none  can  justly  doubt.  If  we  add  thereto  that  Exodus 
and  Leviticus  received  their  present  form  in  the  Phineas 
time,  when  also  Joshua  was  edited,  and  Numbers  in  the  time 
of  Samuel,  for  which  we  have  documentary  intimations  any- 
how, also  the  anachronistic  objections  fall  away,  and  we  are 
entitled  to  the  conclusion  that  the  main  laws  of  Moses,  with 
as  much  of  history  as  was  deemed  necessary  to  understand 
them  correctly,  was  recast  in  the  Exodus-Leviticus  canon — 
originally  one  book — as  early  as  it  was  necessary  for  govern- 
ment, priests  and  people  to  have  it,  and  this  was  at  the  very 
beginning  of  the  occupation  of  Canaan.  When  a  new  literary 
period  dawned  in  Israel  with  the  Prophet  Samuel,  other 
laws  and  portions  of  history  which  the  former  had  not  con- 
sidered, but  were  there  in  the  ancient  Mosaic  records,  were 
compiled  in  the  book  of  Numbers,  which,  with  the  former, 
exhausted  the  laws  of  Moses,  although  not  also  the  history, 
which  was  not  considered  of  equal  importance.  Therefore, 
we  have  no  history  of  Goshen  and  none  of  the  wilderness 
fragments  excepted  from  the  second  to  the  fortieth  year. 
This  gives  us  the  following  dates  : 

Genesis,  Deuteronomy  (with  some  Samuel  additions)  and 
the  entire  material  of  the  three  middle  books  of  the  Penta- 
teuch date  from  the  first  half  of  the  fifteenth  century  B.  C, 
Exodus,  Leviticus  and  Joshua,  fourteenth  century  B.  C, 
Numbers,  also  Judges  and  part  of  Samuel,  eleventh  century 
B.  C. 

With  this  argument  established,  those  advanced  against 
the  authenticity  of  the  historical  books  have  become  worth- 
less. For  they  were  originally  construed  in  support  of  the 
hypothesis,  that  no  Thorah  existed,  and  its  production  was 
a  fraud  and  forgery ;  in  support  thereof  another  and  still 
more  flagrant  fraud  and  forgery  was  perpetrated,  viz. :  the 
historical  records  were  falsified  to  make  it  appear  that  the 
Thorah  existed  from  the  days  of  Moses.     That  hypothesis 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  187 

being  overthrown,  the  whole  series  of  arguments  in  its  sup- 
port is  useless  and  worthless,  and  truth  is  re-enthroned. 

11.  Ezra,  the  Scribe,  a  scion  of  the  last  high  priest  in  the 
Temple  of  Solomon,  was  born  in  Babylonia  toward  the 
close  of  the  reign  of  the  Medo-Persian  King,  Darius  Hysta-- 
pis  (521-485  B.  C).  All  that  is  known  of  th«  life  and  work 
of  Ezra  is  taken  from  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  and 
the  traditions  preserved  in  Talmud  and  Midrash.  Outside 
thereof  that  great  Scribe  is  not  mentioned,  not  even  in  the 
Mishnah ;  where  (Abolh  I.  1)  his  name  is  most  naturally 
expected,  it  is  omitted,  and  the  chain  of  tradition  is  stated 
thus  :  "  Moses  received  the  Thorah  from  Sinah,  delivered  it 
to  Joshua,  Joshua  to  the  Elders,  the  Elders  to  the  Prophets 
and  the  Prophets  to  the  Men  of  the  Great  Synod  ;"  although 
elsewhere  he  is  counted  a  bearer  of  traditions  and  a  disciple 
of  Baruch  ben  Neriah,  who  was  the  scribe  of  the  prophet 
Jeremiah.  The  theory  advanced  by  modern  critics,  that  Ezra 
was  the  author  or  the  editor  or  compiler  of  the  Thorah, 
and  the  historical  books  of  Former  Prophets,  is  based  upon 
no  kind  of  documentary  evidence  ;  it  is  the  product  of  spec- 
ulation, contrary  to  all  written  accounts  of  the  great  scribe, 
who,  according  to  one  statement  in  the  Talmud,  was  identi- 
cal with  the  prophet  Malachi  (Meguillah  15).  This,  how- 
ever, was  not  generally  accepted,  as  he  is  always  called  the 
scribe,  the  Hasid  and  Anav  (pious  and  meek)  like  Moses, 
the  twenty-second  bearer  of  the  traditions  aftor  Moses,  but 
he  is  never  called  a  prophet.  He  is  supposed  ( Sanhedria 
21)  to  have  been  competent  that  the  Thorah  had  been  given 
through  him,  if  Moses  had  not  preceded  him.  The  Talmud 
(Succah  20)  contains  also  this  statement:  "At  first  when 
the  Thorah  had  been  forgotten  in  Israel  Ezra  came  up  (from 
Babylon)  and  established  it;"  but  the  same  thing  is  said 
of  Hillel  (100  B.  C.)  on  the  same  page  of  the  Talmud,  which 
proves  that  Thorah  in  this  connection  refers  to  the  oral  law- 
only,  and  not  to  the  written  Law  of  Moses. 

12.  What  Ezra  actually  did  is  reported  in  the  books  of 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  and  in  the  ancient  Rabbinical  liter- 
ature, thus : 


188  The  Authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

(a)  Ezra  viii.,  the  oldest  chronist,  reports  that  Ezra  was 
an  "expert  Scribe  in  the  Thorah  of  Moses,"'  (verse  6)  and 
"  had   put   his   heart   into   the   inquiry   in   the   Thorah  of 
Jehovah,  and  to  do  and  to  teach  in  Israel  ordinance  and 
judgment,"  was   appointed  by  King  Artaxerxes,  Supreme 
Judge  and  Teacher  of  the  "  Law   of  the  God  of  Heaven " 
(verses  12  and  21),  also  to  appoint  judges  of  all  grades  for 
all  people  west  of  the  Euphrates  (verse  25),  "  that  they  may 
judge  in  all  Syria  and  Palestine"  (1  Esdras  viii.  23).     He 
was  given   almost    absolute    power    to    carry    into   effect 
the  provisions  of  the  king's  decree  (verse  26),  and  he  made 
use  of  his  authority  (Ezra  x.  7,  8).     He  was  also  appointed 
carrier  of  the  treasures  sent  to  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem  and 
head  of  the  colony  led  to   Palestine.     The  term  of  Sopher, 
rendered  "  Scribe,"  we  know  from  the  use  of  this  term  ever 
after   Ezra,    signifies  "a  writer"    or  copyist  (and  not   an 
author),  and   an  "expounder"    of    any  existing  book   or 
books,   or  existing   traditions.     The  terms  of  the  edict  in 
verse  25  (also  21),  that  Ezra's  powers  should  extend  "to 
all  people "  west  of   the    Euphrates,  or   according  to  the 
apocryphal  Esra  all  "  Syria  and  Palestine,"  where  the  non- 
Israelites  were  certainly  predominant  in  numbers,  proves 
that  it  was  not  purely  religious  or  ritual  laws  which  Ezra 
was  to  teach  and  enforce,  all  of  which  existed  in  Palestine 
before  the  advent  of  Ezra;  it  was  the  political  and  social 
law,  DfltJ^OI  pin  (verse  10),  which  was  to  be  introduced  and 
enforced.     This  had  been  suspended,  of  course,  during  the 
Babylonian  captivity   and    was    not  restored  to  the  Zeru- 
babel  colony  in  Palestine  and  at  no  other  time  prior  to  the 
seventh  year  of   King    Artaxerxes ;    he    decreed   the   con- 
version of  the    Medo-Persian    colony   in  Palestine   into  a 
state  organization  with  its  own  law  and  jurisdiction.     This 
was  accomplished  by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.     This  is  evident 
also  from  the  fact   that    Ezra    never    interfered  with   any 
purely    religious    institution,    and    with    Nehemiah    never 
went  beyond  the  sphere  of  political  and  social  law.     This 
appears  from  Nehemiah  ix.  36,  37  and  x.  30,  40. 

In  Jerusalem  tlie  books  inform  us,  that  Ezra,  on  com- 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ.  189 

plaint  by  the  princes,  convened  a  general  meeting  of  all 
people  of  Judah  and  Benjamin  together  with  the  priests 
and  Levites,  iu  order  to  adopt  measures  against  the  evil 
of  misalliance  and  polygamy.  The  general  meeting  de- 
manded the  construction  of  a  representative  body  (Ezrax. 
12,  15).  This,  it  is  justly  supposed,  was  the  origin  of  that 
representative  body,  called  in  the  Talmud  "the  Men  of  the 
Great  Synod,"  of  which  W3  treat  further  on.  Then  again 
Ezra  appears  before  the  assembled  people,  by  order  of 
Nehemiah,  with  "the  book  of  the  Thorah  of  Moses,  which 
Jehovah  commanded  Israel"  (Nehemiah  viii.).  On  that 
memorable  first  day  of  the  seventh  month  Ezra  read  the 
Thorah  up  to  noon  time  of  that  day  before  the  assembled 
people,  and  the  Levites  expounded,  or  perhaps  also  trans- 
lated it  to  those  from  foreign  countries.  These  readings 
were  then  continued  especially  during  the  days  of  the 
feast  of  tabernacles  (verses  13  and  18).  On  the  twenty- 
fourth  day  of  the  seventh  month,  the  Thorah  was  pro 
claimed  as  the  law  of  the  land,  the  assembled  people 
swore  the  oath  of  allegiance,  the  princes  signed  the  docu- 
ment to  this  effect,  and  additional  laws  were  promulgated 
(ibid.  ix.  and  x.).  This  and  nothing  more  is  narrated  of 
the  work  of  Ezra  in  the  two  books. 

(6)  In  the  two  Talmuds  and  the  Midrash  Ezra  is  reported 
as  the  author  of  new  rules  (nijpH)  mostly  referring  to  the 
administration  of  political  and  social  laws  ;  some  referring 
to  writing  and  reading  of  the  Thorah ;  and  the  interdiction 
of  intermarriage  with  ih.Q  Nethinim  (Ezra  viii.  20)  assistants 
of  the  Levites  in  the  temple  service,  appointed  to  it  by  King 
David,  supposed  to  be  descendants  of  the  Gibeonites  that 
came  to  Joshua  to  which  belonged  also  the  "  Sons  of  the 
Servants  of  Solomon."  The  supposition  that  Ezra  was  the 
author  of  any  Thargum,  Syriac  or  Aramaic  version  of  the 
Thorah,  is  erroneous.  In  the  Talmud  (Nedarim  37  and 
Meguillah  3),  on  which  this  supposition  is  based,  it  is  stated 
in  advance,  that  OnJcelos  was  the  author  of  the  Targum  to  the 
Thorah,  and  Jonathan  ben  Uziel  wrote  the  Targum  of 
Prophets.     The  Targumist  of  Hagiography,  Rabbi  Joseph 


190  The  Authenticity  op  the  Pentateuch. 

the  Blind,  is  mentioned  later  on.  Against  this  statement  of 
fact,  an  exposition  of  Abba  Areka  on  Nehemiah  viii.  8,  is 
cited,  where  the  word  i^n^t^  is  understood  to  signify 
"translation"  or  Targum.  This  verse,  however,  refers  not 
to  Ezra  at  all,  it  refers  to  the  Levites,  who  expounded  the 
Thorah  to  the  people,  some  of  them  may  have  spoken  Ara- 
maic to  the  foreigners  in  that  assembly,  and  this,  as  is 
stated  there  in  the  Talmud,  was  forgotten.  In  the  same 
passage  it  is  stated  also  that  the  Levites  promulgated  then 
among  the  people  the  Massorah,  the  division  of  verses,  and 
the  disjunctive  accentual  signs  (D*t3^D  '''pD^)-  As  no 
writing  was  done  there,  we  can  but  understand  this  passage 
to  convey  the  idea  that  the  Levites  repeated  the  passages 
of  the  Thorah  so  subdivided  in  verses  and  the  verses  in 
phrases,  with  the  same  accentuation,  stress  and  emphasis, 
as  they  heard  it  from  Ezra ;  but  it  does  not  say  that  he 
invented  anything.  It  is  maintained  elsewhere  that  the 
main  portion  of  the  Massorah  (not  the  vocal  and  accentual 
signs)  were  as  old  as  the  Thorah  itself,  to  which  is  added 
( Taanith  276  and  Meguillah  22a)  that  the  verses  were 
originally  established  by  Moses.  Therefore  Abba  Areka 
could  not  have  thought  of  crediting  Ezra  with  this  work. 
The  Sopherim,  "  Scribes,"  succeeding  Ezra,  are  given  credit 
only  for  counting  every  letter  in  the  Thorah  {Kiddushin 
30a). 

13.  One  invention  is  ascribed  to  Ezra,  and  this  is  the 
Hebrew  square-letter  alphabet,  called  the  ri^~nj^N  DilD,  now 
the  only  style  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  the  Aramaic  portions 
included.  The  oldest  Hebrew  alphabet,  extant  in  coins  and 
inscriptions,  is  like  the  Phoenician,  original  Greek,  Syrian, 
Samaritan  and  other  Shemites.  With  Ezra  that  new  alpha- 
bet was  brought  into  Palestine,  and  he  transcribed  the 
Thorah  in  these  characters.  After  him  the  Great  Synod 
transcribed  all  books  of  Holy  Writ  in  the  same  manner. 
The  oldest  alphabet  was  henceforth  used  for  ordinary  pur- 
poses ( Snnhedrin  21b  and  Yeru'halmi  Meguillah  Rvst  Perek). 
It  is  maintained  that  Daniel  was  the  inventor  of  the  new 
alphabet,  the  Meiiai  Metiii  was  written  on  the  wall  in  these 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Wkit.  191 

characters,  therefore  only  Daniel  could  read  the  ominous 
inscription  on  the  wall,  and  Ezra  learned  it  from  him. 
Nothing  similar  to  these  letters,  except  in  the  inscriptions 
of  Palmyra,  has  been  discovered  anywhere ;  certainly  noth- 
ing anyway  like  them  in  the  cuneiform  letters  of  Assyrian 
origin.  Therefore  the  rabbis  of  the  Talmud  differ  as  to  the 
signification  of  the  term  Kcthah  Ashurith.  While  some  main- 
tain it  was  called  so  because  it  camo  with  Ezra  from  Assyria, 
others  define  the  term  innDD  ^C^M^*2  XIHC^  "  it  was  an  im- 
proved writing,"  more  distinct  and  more  ])eautifui ;  while 
others  again  maintain  it  was  the  original  Hebrew  alphabet 
which  in  course  of  time  had  fallen  in  disuse  and  was  restored 
by  Ezra.  All  agree,  however,  that  the  Sepher  Ezra,  the 
Scroll,  preserved  in  the  temple  as  the  authentic  copy  of  the 
Thorah,  from  which  all  scrolls  of  the  Thorah  used  in  syna- 
gogue, school  or  hall  of  justice  had  to  be  an  exact  copy,  was 
written  in  this  Kethab  Ashurith  by  Ezra  the  Scribe. 

14.  Connected  with  this  translettering  of  the  Thorah  was 
the  critical  authentication  of  the  text  from  the  various 
manuscripts  and  the  bearers  of  the  traditions.  The  latter 
were  supposed  to  know  every  word  of  the  Thorah,  with  its 
proper  vocalization  and  accentuation  and  every  letter  of 
every  word,  by  heart,  of  which  class  Ezra  is  represented  the 
highest  expert.  Wherever  the  two  authorities  deviated  from 
one   another,  the   differences  were  noted  in   the   following 

manner :  IDH  n^"l3  np  ]'np  N*^1  p^HD  |^3nD  N*'?"!  \'np 

DHiDD  ~TltD);i  DHtDD  ]"\pn  iii'7*2)  viz.,  the  letters  or  words 

as  found  in  the  manuscripts  were  retained  in  the  text,  and  the 
deviations  of  the  tradionalists  were  noticed  in  marginal 
notes.  The  authenticated  copy  of  the  Thorah  required  also 
protection  against  the  mistakes  of  transcribers  or  willful 
interpolators  ;  to  this  end  other  parts  of  the  Massorah  were 
established  referring  to  writing.  One  of  the  most  important 
rules  in  this  connection  is  that  none  of  the  sacred  l)ooks 
must  be  written  from  memory  ;  it  must  be  copied  word  by 
word  and  letter  by  letter  from  an  authentic  copy.  Other 
rules  of  this  kind  are  large  letters  and  small  letters  in  cer- 


192  The  Authenticity  op  the  Pentateuch. 

tain  fixed  words  (J^DIH  NH^")  O  '{<)  the  exact  space  to 
be  left  between  words  and  verses,  major  and  minor  para- 
graphs (m^DiriDI  mmnD)  that  certain  pages  must  begin 
with  certain  words ;  the  exceptional  lineal  arrangement  for 
writing  the  poetical  portions  of  Scriptures,  and  many  other 
rules  compiled  in  the  rabbinical  code  of  Maimonides,  by 
which  the  authentic  copies  could  be  recognized  primi  vista. 
All  these  rules  and  exceptions  are  noticed  in  Talmud  and 
Midrash  centuries  before  the  Massorites  of  the  sixth  Chris- 
tian century  invented  the  vowel  and  accentual  signs  ;  hence 
as  far  as  the  Thorah  is  concerned  may  be  ascribed  to  Ezra, 
as  is  always  presupposed  in  the  Talmud.  This,  however,  is 
all  that  can  legitimately  be  ascribed  to  Ezra  in  connection 
with  the  Thorah.  There  exists  no  documentary  evidence 
bevond  this  of  Ezra's  work,  and  these  suffice  to  establish 
beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  after  him  no  change  what- 
ever could  be  made  in  the  text  of  the  Thorah. 

15.  The  Men  of  the  Great  Synod  (n'^n^H  HDIJ  ^C^JK) 
consisted  of  120  members,  viz.,  44  Horiiti,  44  Seganim,  22 
Levites,  8  priests,  all  heads  of  family  groups,  high  priest 
and  scribe  as  presiding  officers,  up  to  the  time  after  the  con- 
quests of  Alexander  the  Great.  After  this  time  the  number 
of  the  body  was  changed  to  70,  and  was  called  "  The  Beth 
Din  of  the  High  Priests,"  from  Simon  the  Just  to  Judah 
Maccabee,  and  "  The  Beth  Din  of  the  Maccabees  "  up  to  the 
reign  of  John  Hyrcan,  when  the  character  and  name  of  that 
body  was  changed  into  Synedrion  or  Sanhedrin,  no  longer 
presided  over  by  high  priest  and  scribe.  Prior  to  this 
change  the  body  was  called,  generally,  the  Great  Synod. 
This  body  continued  the  work  of  Ezra  in  accordance  with 
his  rules  and  regulations  applied  to  all  books  of  Holy  Writ, 
authenticated  critically,  translettered  into  Kethab  Ashurith 
(some  books  they  compiled  from  defective  manuscripts)  and 
established  official  copies  for  the  temple  archives,  which  re- 
mained the  exemplary  copy  for  all  copyists.  In  course  of 
time  it  seems  Former  Prophets  came  first,  then  Later  Pro- 
phets, then  Hagiography,  of  which  Psalms,  Koheleth  and 
Shir  Hashirim  came  last.     There  were  in  the  temple  salaried 


Pronaos  to  Holy  Wiut.  193 

correctors  of  copies  made  from  the  books  kept  in  the 
arcliives  ( Ycrushalvii).  They  were  called  Zophini  and 
Hachrauii,  only  the  names  of  the  two  last  officers  are  pre- 
served, viz.,  Rabbi  Joshua  ben  Chananiahand  Rabbi  Eliezer 
ben  Hyrcan,  under  whose  direction  Onkclos  or  Aquila  trans- 
lated the  Thorah  (ibid.  Megillah  first  Perek),*  the  correct 
l^ronunciation  and  accentuation  of  each  word  and  phrase 
was  the  particular  care  of  the  scribes  and  teachers  of  the 
young  (Nedarini  37a),  and  the  main  science  of  the  profes- 
sion. The  Massorites  could  invent  no  more  in  their  time 
than  the  vowel  and  accentual  signs  to  represent  the  sounds 
known  to  every  man  of  knowledge  in  Israel.  The  Maso- 
retic  notes  only  refer  to  exceptions,  the  rule  of  reading  cor- 
rectly the  text  was  always  well  known,  as  is  evident  from 
the  ancient  Rabbinical  literature,  the  ancient  translations, 
Greek,  Aramaic,  Syriac,  Latin,  Samaritan  and  Gothic.  Thus 
not  only  the  manuscripts  but  also  the  pronunciation  and 
accentuation  of  each  syllable  of  Holy  Writ  were  preserved 
intact,  alike  in  all  ages  and  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  as  is 
evident  from  the -ancient  manuscripts  extant  and  especially 
from  the  still  more  ancient  commentaries  and  the  united 
testimony  of  the  Karaites  and  the  Christians  of  the  first 
centuries.  There  exists  no  solid  ground  on  which  to  base 
any  doubt  in  the  authenticity  of  any  book  of  Holy  "Writ. 

*  The  story  of  R.  Simeon  beu  Lakish  in  Sopherim  vi.  4,  and  in 
Yerushalmi  that  scrolls  of  the  Law  found  in  the  temple  court  were 
rejected  by  a  majority  rule,  because  two  had  it  so  and  one  other- 
wise, the  one  always  was  rejected,  is  certainly  a  mistake  of  the 
copyist,  because  no  such  rule  in  this  connection  is  given  in  the 
Talmud.  The  passage  is  suspicious  anyhow  by  its  number  tliroe 
and  in  three  cases.  The  mistake  of  the  transcriber  is  perhaps  that 
he  turned  the  statement  to  tell  the  very  opposite  of  what  was  the 
case,  viz.,  although  two  were  incorrect  and  one  correct,  yet  the  two 
were  rejected. 

The  End. 


I 


^ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


^'^5'r.,^ 
^^/r".^^^^ 


^^'1a 


26 


'^An 


'^QQS 


f^€i 


■^% 


^; 


*^ 


f  T-) .  U  R  I 


tlEOO^ 


i^b; 


D 


Form  L9-40m-7,'56(C790s4)444 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUF0RNIA-L08  ANGELES 

l!|||)|!!    |l      III      lllllil      lllllll   !M  I  II      III   I  III:    l|l  f 


L  007  678  831  4 


'^: 


--*  .«-  J?V.   ■ 


V  ^- 


UCSOUTHtH',  MlM'j'.^.L  L  rH/.Hi  iA'JLITV 


AA    000  634  758    7 


■y^*-"  ■"5'         ,; 


"iiMi^',^>H\ 


•'-^'••V'S^^'f'^^ 


.. *-.  "^-  <^.^ 


;5ii  f 


f^,: 


AV.(A 


